Loading...
1i. Minutes 1 44 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING • MARCH 9, 1992 114 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at - 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag led by the Brownie Troop. ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman, Councilman Wing and Councilwoman Dimler STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Elliott Knetsch, Charles Folch, Todd Gerhardt, Todd Hoffman, Paul Krauss, and Sharmin Al -Jaff APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the agenda as amended by Mayor Chmiel to add under Council presentations Youth Art Month, District 112. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 8 -14, 1992 AS GIRL SCOUT WEEK. Mayor Chmiel: The next item is something that's really sort of neat for us to see today. On March 12th of this year it's going to be the Girl Scouts of the United States of America's celebrating their 80th years of preparing girls to meet the challenges in our every changing society. That's the reason we have all these smiling faces right here in front of us. They all look so happy. And with that I would also like to read a proclamation,, or I should say a resolution declaring March 8th thru the 14th, 1992 as Girl Scout Week. Whereas on March 12, 1992 Girl Scouts of the United States of America celebrates 80 years of helping girls grow into confident and resoureful adults; and Whereas, Girl Scouts of the USA, 3 million strong is the largest non - profit organization for girls in the world; and Whereas, the Greater Minneapolis Girl Scout Council II coordinates activities for more than 23,000 girls in an 8 county area, and Whereas, Girl Scouting reaches out to girls of diverse culture, heritage including Asian, Hispanic, African American and Native American; and Whereas, ' Girl Scouting provides an environment where girls can enjoy nature, learn to work together and gain leadership skills; and Whereas, Girl Scouts helping girls again gain self esteem to make the right choices in their personal lives and their careers; and Whereas, Girl Scouting helps girls become outstanding citizens of our community; Now Therefore, I, Donald J. Chmiel, the Mayor of the city of Chanhassen do hereby proclaim the week of March 8 -14, 1992 to be Girl Scout Week. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 9th day of March, 1992. Congratulations. Girl Scout Leader: We colored in a special banner for you to see because this is the 80th anniversary of Girl Scouting. And we thank you for letting us come tonight... Mayor Chmiel: I just want to say that it's really a pleasure to see these girls as they're standing here and they've got those smiles on their faces. They look as though they're going to be our leaders in the upcoming years. Thank you again for coming. r 1 r • City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 11 Resolution #92 -31: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded a proclamation declaring March 8 -14, 1992 as Girl Scout Week. All voted in favor and the II motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA; Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approval of Accounts. II b. Approval of Minutes. I d. Resolution #92 - 32: Resolution Approving Historic Preservation Trust Agreement. e. Subdivision of 2.107 Acres into Two Lots, 915 Pleasant View Road, Edwards/ Vogel Subdivision, Scott Edwards and David Vogel. f. Resolution #92 - 33: Authorize Readvertisement for Bids for Market Square Storm Sewer Project No. 90 -13. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. II VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: UPDATE ON SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT, DIANE HARBERTS. ' Mayor Chmiel: Our next item on the Southwest Metro Transit is not going to be ' here and this is going to be tabled until March 23rd. Our next meeting. II Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to table this item until the March 23, 1992 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad Fiskness: Is this...Visitor Presentation? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. If you'd like to do something, I'd be more than happy to have you to do that Conrad. I Conrad Fiskness: 30 seconds, if I may impose on your time. Conrad Fiskness from the Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District. I just wanted to come by and explain an item to you folks. As you're probably aware, we've been working with your staff with regard to an LCMR proposal for Bluff Creek. I just wanted to explain to you why this happened to come about with such what seemingly incredible short amount of time and that's exactly the way it came to us. At our February meeting a gentleman appeared before us and said that he had II been made aware just within about a week before that of an opportunity to apply for LCMR funds for that area. He happens to be, a gentleman by the name of Eric Roth. He has a long time interest in that area. He had done some preliminary I work. He brought it into us and he says you have, this is on Wednesday night at about 9:00. He says you have until 4:00 Friday afternoon to have this proposal . in and he says you look like you'd be the kind of an organization that might be able to be the sponsor. We discussed it and we decided that there was enough 2 • City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 money involved, even though it was a long shot. We understand there are 900 applicants, that it was still worth getting Chanhassen, if we could help them, ' on the record anyway as being an applicant. The proposal that was whipped together, and we made it within the 44 hours that we had at our disposal, is for • a, and maybe you have seen copies of that proposal. I'm not sure but there was included $5.3 million for land acquisition, $200,000.00 for planning and $100,000.00 for a demonstration area. I don't know what our chances are. They're probably too slim and none but we didn't want to be the ones that would stand, someone would be able to say that well if they had done something we might have had a chance at it. So we plowed ahead. We've done some work with your staff. With Paul Krauss. Some discussions. We can't tell you a whole lot about what this is about. There are some other people that have done some of the early preliminary work and they are continuing to do some. We don't have a whole lot of money to spend on a lot of preliminary work either at this juncture not having had any opportunity to plan our budget for it. My understanding at this point is, that there will be a first cut made as to who survives. If this proposal makes that first cut, then we would propose that we would work it out so that we could spend considerable time working with Paul and anybody else from the City that would be appropriate and probably any work done prior to that time could wind up being an exercise in futility and spending of taxpayers money. But we did want to let you know that we weren't trying to go around you. We weren't trying to do anything of the sort. We just wanted to, as long as someone had come to us with this idea and it might have even a slim chance, we'd pick up the ball and carry it to the next step and so there'd be at least available an opportunity for you. That's all. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Appreciate it. , PUBLIC HEARING: SUPPLEMENT REPORT TO FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 92 -3 (FORMERLY PROJECT 87 -2). 1 Public Present: Name Address ' Jim Dvorak Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch Dennis Eyler Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch Wilmer Molnau 8541 Audubon Road Charlie James 6640 Shady Oak Road, Eden Prairie Brian Burdick 426 Lake Street, Excelsior Richard Brose 8575 Kandla Road, Waconia Doug Kunin Eckankar _ Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members' of the Council. Our project consultant engineer, Mr. Jim Dvorak is here tonight to provide a presentation to initiate the public hearing. We also have his associate Dennis Eyler of SRF to provide answers to any more detailed questions on the traffic analysis. The study that was recently completed. Jim Dvorak: Like Charles and the Mayor have indicated, this is a public hearing for Project 92 -3 which is this long awaited detachment of West 78th Street just east of downtown. West of the central business district. The project as we have approached this considers West 78th between Kerber and Powers Blvd. and 3 • 1 1 'City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 also Powers Blvd. from that point where MnDot...construction in the spring, ' north approximately 1,500 feet. Sections that we envision for 78th and Powers are basically a four lane divided roadway. Four lanes providing two lanes in each direction with a median in the middle. The median would then be narrowed at points where a left turn needs to be developed for access into the individual .f parcels along the road. These two sections show this. The upper one showing the full 18 foot median. The lower one as can see shows a smaller median with a left turn lane where the 18 foot median... This figure shows the actual improvements that are proposed starting with the sanitary sewer, watermain. The watermain and sanitary sewer will be extended along West 78th where needed to provide service to the adjoining parcels, mainly in the westerly end in this area and then some service in here and most of the other parcels are previously served by utilities that are in existing West 78th. Storm sewer, the area is basically drains from east /west and we are perpetuating that drainage pattern bringing the water down West 78th into a treatment pond in this area and then ' draining into a protected wetland north of the future frontage road extension to the west. In addition to street improvements, we've also proposed sidewalks on both sides of West 78th. North and south as well as a trail extension on Powers ' to the next intersection. Also, examined was the possibility of installing signals into this project. The signals will be required when a certain amount of development takes place in the city. ...the cost of the signals in but until that development takes place, the signals will not be necessary or warranted. At the very least we will be installing conduit and...to facilitate the future signal construction. In addition to the street and utility improvements, we're also proposing some landscaping. As graphically illustrated here, I say graphically because I know that this shows a large number of trees abutting the roadway. This is a schematic or graphic. It is not intended to show the number of trees. We also indicated that there will be some type of street lighting ' system along here. Here again this is a graphic. It is not intended to show the number of street lights but only that there is the intent here to light the roadway. In the median themselves, in the areas where there are turn lanes, because of the right -of -way that's previously been dedicated, the median II adjacent to the turn lanes is only 6 feet. In that area is not a wide enough or practical to plant so we would propose that that be some type of a hard surface. Either a concrete or some type of a decorative paver. That type of thing. In ' the widen areas which would be in this area here and here, there is the opportunity to do some type of landscaping treatment. Small trees. Shurbs. That type of thing. The other thing we want to avoid is any sight distance problems that would be associated with planting and landscaping in areas where you need to see to enter on and off West 78th. The estimated cost of the project, we estimate that the West 78th portion will cost approximately $1.3 million. Of that about $970,000.00 is actual construction cost. Of the 1 attitives, the engineering, legal and administrative that type of thing being about $240,000.00. Powers Blvd. about $451,000.00 construction costs with the attitive being $160,000.00 for a total cost $612,000.00. Total cost for both segments about $1.9 million dollars. Funding for this, the abutting properties r that benefit from the improvement proposed to be assessed. The first column here shows an estimate of what we have come up with for assessment. It should be noted that these are only estimates and that the final assessment amount will 1 be determined when the project is constructed and final construction costs and engineering costs are known. Grading the paving signals and lighting, . assessments of about $270,000.00. Storm sewer and drainage, $109,000.00. 11 Sanitary and sewer, watermain together about $75,000.00 for a total proposed 4 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 - assessment of about $450,000.00. The balance, we have under the general obligation column will be funded by the city in whatever funding mechanism they have available. We also have an individual breakdown by parcel of what we estimate or what the estimated assessment would be. I have additional copies... if anybody's interested in having a copy for their use. I'll be happy to answer any questions or address any concerns that people may have. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. This is again, I'd like to mention a public hearing. What I'd like to do is, if you have a question, come forward to the podium. State your name and your address. Then if you have a question, we can have those questions answered. Wilmer, did you want to ask a question? Wilmer Molnau: Well it was just a little bit. Do I have to get up there? I'm kind of shy. Mayor Chmiel: Would you please. ' Wilmer Molnau: I'm a little bashful. Mayor Chmiel: I know you are. But you're such a good looking guy. Wilmer Molnau: I'm Willy Molnau. I live on Audubon Road. This landscaping, will that include the car wash system too like we have for half of it now? Every time we come to town we got to go home and wash our car because a little breeze, we've got a 3 block car wash in town now and if we continue this, well maybe we'll get the car wash from the other side on the way home. Mayor Chmiel: Figure if we go up one side and come back the other way we might get it accomplished. You're right. Tom, did you want to say something? 1 Councilman Workman: Well that's a good question. And if few of you know, Willy has been voted Citizen of the Year. I wanted to bring that up, by the Chamber. But we were talking about that because Todd, isn't the HRA picking up or subsidizing the landscaping portion of this to an extent. Aren't the decisions as to how much shrubbery, etc. are being left to the HRA which is at least myself and the Mayor and we're keeping an eye and that kind of comment in mind when we make practical decisions in that corner about where to put shrubbery and sprinkler systems. Wilmer Molnau: What I really wanted to know was in the middle, the way it looks here, there's nothing unless I can't see well but up here there's shrubbery in the middle of the street. Is that going to continue all the way is is what I'm really trying to say? Councilman Workman: Well, and what I'm trying to say is I think we're learning from our mistakes. And that being a curve, we learn that down on the other end around the Dinner Theatre that it makes for a little more difficult visibility with the brush. The shrubbery that we had there. Wilmer Molnau: Thank you. , Mayor Chmiel: Maybe you can answer that question fully. 5 City'Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 Jim Dvorak: I guess first of all I'd like to point out that there are three areas that are wide enough in this plan that would enable some type of landscaping to be done in the median... We will be very sensitive to the issue of sight distance and that type of thing when we actually get into the final design of landscaping the roadway. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? This is a public hearing. If anyone has any specific concerns, now's your time to come up. Charlie James: The Girl Scouts are a hard act to follow. My name is Charlie James. I'm with the T.F. James Company. I'd like to thank you all for this opportunity to speak. I promise to be as brief as I can. I believe it's an ' unfortunate fact that the proposed street was redesigned without consultation or input from, I want to say the adjoining property owners. ..with Brian but at least it was designed without any notice or consultation to me. I'm not certainly suggesting any maliciousness here or any conspiracy theory or anything. I'm just saying that's the way it is. That's the way it was. I was not asked to contribute any ideas and concerns and I am not privy to what criteria and what assumptions were utilized in developing this plan. I do know that this plan does not take into consideration the previous actions of the City Council nor is it consistent with the development agreement that was executed between the City and my firm. Some of this is ancient history so for the ' benefit of you who were not here in 1988, I would like to take just a few minutes to bring you up to speed. I do see some new faces here tonight. When we initially bought what I guess everybody refers to as the Brost property, the ' comprehensive plan for Chanhassen at that time showed the property pretty much divided in half on an east /west line with multi - family to the north and commercial, downtown commercial, or I should say general business to the south. And even at that time the 78th Street detachment was contemplated. I don't know ' how long some of you have lived in Chanhassen but where the intersection is now, there used to be kind of a pond and marsh and cattail area. So I think there was the foresight that that intersection would have to be moved in the future II and also to swing it around what was in a pond. So when we came in 3 or 4 years ago with our plans, everything that we came in with and suggested and proposed was in exact conformity with your comprehensive plan. And we worked with your staff at that time and your consultants at that time and for a continuing period of 3 years. And at that time Mr. Burdick was platting or maybe it was replatting his land to the south. In designing the new street we tried to match our driveways with Mr. Burdick's lot lines. I'd like to just show an • illustration here if I may. The parcel of land that I own is this, everything south of this green line here. This is West 78th Street down here as it currently travels and here's Kerber. This is Powers Blvd.. This drawing was done on March 27, 1987. Almost 4 years ago. And we met with MnDot and the staff at that time and I see my consultant who's here on another matter this evening, Jim Hill. And we worked with BRW and lots of thought went into the radius of the turns and of the curves given the speeds and this sort of thing. At that time it was contemplated there would be an 80 foot right -of -way which we donated or dedicated. And it was proposed that there would be no medians in this area. There were provisions for sidewalks and landscaping and that sort of thing but they weren't going to continue some of the stuff that •was done • downtown because already at that time I guess there was some problems developing with the street being narrow in the wintertime or whatever. But in any event, in working with your staff and with BRW, the previous consultants on this 6 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 1 detachment, we were looking at the issue of access and I see Brian Burdick is here tonight. Maybe he can help me on this but about the time that we were 1 planning the division of this property, the Burdicks were either dividing or redividing their property and that's why there's these sets of lines. So what we tried to accomplish, the first criteria we were told is that an access back to be back 300 feet from Powers and that's what was provided here. And we 1 agreed that wherever possible we would put a driveway on a lot line so that two parcels would share a driveway. And in the development agreement and what was passed by the City Council was that there would be 4 driveway entrances along West 78th Street. All those would be full turn movements. There were no medians contemplated plus what we did is I offered to donate this area in here and we replatted a little outlot because we didn't know what the exact geometrics were going to be and this was a little Outlot A down here and the idea was to get the Burdick's access coming back this way essentially at the same point back as we were. Plus then what we did is we said okay, we'll try to line our driveway entrances up wherever the Burdick's have a lot line. So these points here, here's the lot line of the Burdick's and here's the lot line so in the plan that was developed there was to be a full turn movement here, here and I should say that this plan does not show how land was ultimately plotted. There was 4 lots and the first 2 lots shared this driveway. The next 2 lots shared a common driveway. Then essentially there was a driveway for this tract here. And as I say, the intent of all of that was that they not only lined up with the way that the Burdick's at that time were platting their property...but they ended up being precisely the area in which we platted...So we got a plat now and developed agreement that was dependent on shared driveway locations at these points and we felt that was a significant concession at that point to have these large tracts of land share a single full turn movement. And ultimately the development agreements said that there'd be 4'driveways. There'd be 300 feet from Hwy 17. There'd be no access for this lot right here from Hwy 17 and the street plans did not contemplate a dividied or raised median. Also at that time we received approval from the City Council and the Planning Commission for a.project that was dependent on the constructure of this detached road'and fortunately I think primarily due to scheduling delays at MnDot, that detachment didn't get built when it should and I guess we all missed our estimates on that. The idea was that the detachment would be done in conjunction with TH 5 and I'm sure you all now TH 5 was just pushed back and pushed back and pushed back. Maybe I'll just hold these up. This was the plans that were previously done by BRW and this is CR 17 here. I highlighted in yellow where the driveway entrances were that were approved at that time. I've also shown on here in purple where the lot lines are of the platted land. So here you see that we have a driveway here 300 feet back from the intersection and the property line of the platted lot goes right down the center of that driveway. There's no driveway at this point and then these two lots share this driveway which is also serves Mr. Burdick's parcel here across the street and ours as well. And that property line is in the center of that driveway and when we come down here• again, this driveway entrance was determined by Mr. Burdick's property line on this side of the street so we agreed to put our driveway across from that. And if we go a little bit further east towards downtown, again Mr. Burdick had a property line here and so we agreed to place our driveway entrance across from that anticipating that that would be the logical place in the future for a business driveway entrance. I guess the problem that I have with the plan as • it's been submitted tonight is that leaves us with 3 lots, I guess you'll have to refer to your small drawing there. I don't know if the lots. It leaves us ' 7 1 • 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 with 3 lots essentially that just become orphans... Originally we had a full turn movement here that was 300 feet back from the intersection, which was the 1 required design standard we were told and that was shared on this side of the street and this side of the street. We all said there was no entrance at this point. There was an entrance at this 'point. And that was supposed to be shared by these two lots with the services into this lot would come in and touch. It was to the exact location, if you draw this line down was to hit right there on these two lot lines on Mr. Burdick's property. The other entrances that we had were on this lot line here and this lot line here. So a lot of thought went into this and now all of a sudden you end up with a situation here that I just found out about where I've got 3 lots up here that are orphan lots that you can't get to from here. You can come from the north. You can come from the ' south. You can come from the west. You can't get into these lots and that, in my opinion, really changes the use of these lots. And I guess we worked with . staff here for 3 years on this and I met with staff this morning and expressed by concerns and of course it was too late to come up with anything, for us to work anything out for this evening. But I have indicated to staff that would help solve this problem and I'd be willing to even increase the amount of dedication of the right -of -way here if that would help us get more turn lanes in I here. I want to explain that out here there's kind of a hole in this area and we had everythin all set up to go here. Well this is going to be a temporary retaining area and Jim had designed everything so that we could build and then the City could figure out this storm sewer later and it is our intent, based on the calculations that were done by James R. Hill, they said don't grade this yet because this will balance out and you'll fill this hole when it's-no longer 1 needed in here. When the storm sewer system gets developed. So I just wanted to tell you all that the property out there's going to look a lot better in the future when the storm sewer goes in than it does right now. We've had to do some temporary measures out there. I guess there's a lot of other points I 1 II could go into but I'll try to wind this up for you. When you leave tonight, I'd encourage all of you to drive downtown on your street going down towards Pauly's and that way and you'll see that every business downtown is literally located on a corner with full access. If you'll notice the length of the buildings from that little strip center where Brooks is, they're on a corner so they have a full turn movement. Medical Clinic. You go on the other side of the street, the motel. Every business downtown. The lots are wide enough or whatever. The I street was designed with those businesses in mind. They all have full access and we're being denied that out here. So I'm being asked from this feasibility report to pay $372,837.00 in assessments in addition to the $129,885.00 in - II assessments that are already incurred on the property. $228,000.00 of this half a million dollars is for the street. I don't feel that the way the street is designed that it's in our best interest to spend that kind of money. So I guess for all the reasons that I've tried to ennumerate here this evening, I guess I would ask that this feasibilty study be tabled until such time as the access issues can be resolved with the staff and your consulting engineers. We have labored in good faith for 3 years on this assuming that things were going to be 1 one way and this is sort of a bottom of the 9th inning change for us so thank you very much. II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. 2 outs and 2 strikes and 3 balls. Don Ashworth: Do you wish to have me respond? 8 ' • City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 r Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Maybe I'd like, I asked Don if he would proably respond to some of this as well because he's aware as to most of the things that have transpired in that particular area. Don. Don Ashworth: Tabling action is probably a good idea. But to go back a little bit in history, after the completion of the downtown and the amount of traffic we were looking at with the presentation of what became known as Market Square Development, a number of good questions were put out on the table in terms of will this roadway handle the volume of traffic that's anticipated for the • downtown, and will the existing street function? In that process we employed Strgar and asked them those questions. It was their position that the street as it had been laid out by BRW using the then current traffic projections would not function. And in fact that the divided condition .should be strongly considered ' and that a portion of the existing roadway, at least as it would go by the Market Square development, should be widened in that area as well. After completion of the Strgar analysis, which has been within let's say the last 6 months, we have attempted a number of sessions to get public input. We went back to the Chamber. We did Alive at 5. Each one of those sessions we brought Strgar in attempting to present their findings and why it would appears as though that a change in the plans would be necessary. I again apologize if Mr. James was not a part of those but there wasn't any conscience decision not to include them. In fact just the opposite by going back to businesses we were trying to take and get their input. If we could take but just a moment to review why Strgar had come back with the recommendations that they had in regards to the roadway, I think that that would be helpful. ''Before I ask Denny Eyler Co do that, we should note that not all of the businesses within the downtown have the turning points that Charlie had referred to. I think the Medical Clinic is an example where you go down to the Kenny's area and come in or adjacent to the Riveria but in either case there's cross or reciprocal easements that exist allowing them to gain that access. In that particular area we're talking about a right -in /right -out for their facility. Very much as the Riveria has. If you want to approach the Riveria from the westerly side, you're actually going through a reciprocal easement across the Brooks property. And so I don't think that right out driveways have been ruled out of this project which may help the very end lot. And I don't think that we have ruled out, and in fact I think we would strongly encourage again reciprocal easements that Mr. James would literally put against himself or against his own property to gain access. With that Dennis, could you go through your recommendation to the HRA from 2 or 3 months ago? Dennis Eyler: Yes Don. When we looked at the traffic numbers that were forecasted with the proposed development along West 78th Street, and some of the problems that existed along the pre- construction courses in...we came to the 11 conclusion, and this is also based on experience with similar roadways in other areas. Not just ours but experience gained by traffic engineers throughout the country, that when you get volumes of this nature with the large number of turns, that a 5 lane roadway of some sort would be much better than a 4 lane undivided roadway. And we looked at a couple of options with the 5 lane roadway and I'll have to dig through my transparencies here and see if I can. This is kind of a typical section that shows what's out there today on the eastern end of the 48 foot roadway and in some areas are a left turn lane leaving you a narrow median similiar to what Jim was talking abou -t earlier and we proposed a widening that would be in a range of 72 to 78 feet, depending on what the median City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 1 treatment would be and the existing right -of -way that's been platted is 80 feet. So that just barely fits within the existing right -of -way that's been platted. 1 I've got another slide here that shows more of a top down view of the different...we looked at. Perhaps I didn't bring that along with me. We did look at the 5 lane undivided roadway and the center left turn... Starting with I the 2 lane roadway and then going to the 3 lane roadway. Essentially what you have in the eastern end of 78th Street today...just being painted and this is actually a raised median... Alternative to that would have been a 3 lane ' undivided roadway with two way left turn lanes. What was originally proposed were the 4 lane roadway and the problem with the 4 lane roadway is that when you have a lot of left turns, which you will have with a lot of driveways and a lot of access points, you virtually lose the use of the inside lane, plus you have 1 the problem that if you do have lined up driveways, and lining up the driveways is a good overall feature, you would have left turns being made simultaneously in the two driveways and the view of oncoming traffic from one left turn would ' block off the other left turn. So the obvious solution to that is to go to a 5 lane roadway so you can get the left turns facing each other and they can see by and find gaps in ongoing traffic. The alternative we looked at there were 5 lanes undivided or 5 lanes divided with the raised median. And national II accident statistics prove that this design is safer than this and the 5 lane with a raised median is much safer than that. So staff's recommendation was that we look at a 5 lane option. At that time we were given some direction as far as the access location but it was our understanding that that wouldn't be decided. And we did take a look at what it would take to provide, additional access points, at least on kind of an informal basis. Including the idea of I providing an access point here and we had some problems with the center lane. We said we were going to try to provide a full access at this location, keeping the same section within the 80 feet right -of -way. We would be forced to try to get end to end left turn lanes in 300 feet. Well allowing for even a 5 to 1 1 taper in the middle, that would mean that you'd have only about 100 foot turn lanes length on each end available for separate turn lanes in that scenario. The 100 foot turn lane would not be adequate to handle the left turn out onto 1 Powers with the full development. The only alternative would be to look at essentially a 6 lane section in here where you'd have a left turn lane for eastbound and left turn lane for westbound side by side. Now that had some ramifications for right -of -way because now you're talking about a roadway that's over 80 feet wide and exceeds the existing right -of -way and then there's a question of how you transition that back into this area. That we were not directed to develop that any further at that time. As far as making U turns and getting into properties that would not have median openings, by having the 2 lanes in each direction plus the turn slots, the roadway would be wide enough for automobiles to make U turns. Unlike the existing roadway that's on the east end of 78th Street. There is only one lane to turn into. There's not quite .enough width there to make U turns. U turns at intersections are legal in Minnesota unless signed otherwise. With that I think I'll answer any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Dennis Eyler: ...but they're not free. I mean there's going to have to be some trade offs for those... There's also issues about developing the landscaping. 1 1 10 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: One of the questions that I have immediately is, when we looked at this, did we review any of the commitments that we had done previously such as Mr. James has brought out back in '87 and '88? Dennis Eyler: The direction we were given by staff was not that specific. I guess that's the way I look at it. I wasn't part of the meeting that was held this morning so, I've been under the weather and kind of.in and out of the office. I wouldn't say I drug myself out of bed to come here tonight but I've felt better, let's put it that way. So I wasn't at this morning's meeting so I can't speak to what was discussed there. ' Mayor Chmiel: With the 5 lanes, would that be sufficient as far as the road right -of -way with the 80 feet? Would that be workable within that 80 feet? The 5 lanes. Dennis Eyler: It is with the stipulation that the sidewalks and the landscaping items are put on some sort of easement rather than in...right -of -way. The roadway itself takes up virtually all of the 80 feet... Mayor Chmiel: I think Mr. James indicated too that he'd be willing to provide some additional right -of -way. I guess my own feeling is right now is I'd like to have us, at least my opinion is to sit down with staff and Mr. James and reach a conclusion as to what can be done and what can't be done. My only concerns are is to keep it within the cost frames that we're already looking and as we're looking right now at approximately $1,920,000.00 totally for the general obligation amount as well as the assessable amounts. And with that I'l throw it open. Ursula. , Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my question was too that I would like to see the Burdick's involved in that in the fact that maybe their, I wondered if their property lines on those lots are still valid or if they have been final plotted. Brian Burdick: Our property lines there are as they're shown on the drawing in final plat. Councilwoman Dimler: Those are final? Brian Burdick: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And how about Mr. James, are your's final too? 1 Charlie James: They're in final plat...as far as the developer... Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so there's not much room for movement there? ' Charlie James: I could give you a little insight on that if you'd like. I don't want to belabor this but one of the things that we were suggesting is that originally this driveway that we had here was going to be in this point. Under this plan it's moved it down and so one of the things we could do is we could probably live with this and I'm sure, well I can't speak for Brian and his father but my thought was that when I saw a ruler today, if we just extended this lot line down to here instead of breaking it like that, it would come to the center like of the driveway. And Don, I have to take a little bit at issue 11 'City 'Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 1 with you I'm afraid. The first I ever heard about this was I got this faxed to ' me and when I saw that this was in the works and so I wrote correspondence to the city here and there was no come to a meeting or no do anything. There was no announcement about anything. I wrote a letter to the city and attached all • these exhibits and explained what had happened in the past and on and on and on and so what I got back was a drawing. Anyway I got back a drawing that . basically reinstated what we have before and showed the double turn lanes. Downtown, if you look at the Riveria, we did try to share these driveways so 1 when you got, you've got like the Medical Clinic here and here's a parking lot and then here's what is it, Kenny's over here and then... The point is that these people can make full turn movements into, at these points and I guess that's what we were trying to accomplish down here too by sharing the driveways. I guess the only thing that might come up in the future that I'd like to just make the Council aware of at this point is I'm perfectly willing to increase the width of the right -of -way but I want to explain one other constraint that we've 1 got. The sand kind of shifted under us again here. When we did our grading plan there, there was a 50 foot setback between commercial and residential and again there was I think a 50 foot setback between the multi- family and 1 commercial. So what we did was when we developed our grading plan, we put the property line in the middle of the slope figuring we could utilize that green area. So when you were looking at the property from the front you'd see the front of these buildings and behind it you'd see a 100 foot wide swath of green and then up above that would be the multi - family. So I guess when the Super America store went in on TH 7 and TH 41, there was some objection or something so they changed the setback rules now. Yeah. So if we increase the right-of- way here, the only problem that I might have is meeting some of these setback requirements from the street because these lots could get too narrow. That's why I'll dedicate, either dedicate the right -of -way and we have some kind of an ' agreement about looking at these setback things when we come in with a specific proposal, or else we could do it in the form of an easement so that I get credit out to the property line. Do you follow me? That's the only I guess drawback of creating additional right -of -way. But I guess I'd just like the opportunity to work with staff on this. I don't want to see anybody get hurt out here. I don't want to see any accidents. I want this to be a nice entrance to Chanhassen, just like I'm sure you do. I'd just like the chance to work with 1 you on it. Councilwoman Dimle.r: Thank you. Also I wanted to ask Paul, that lowland there, • ' is that going to be considered a wetland and do we need to apply all that stuff we've been talking about to that particular area? It's a utility so it would not be? So there won't be any problems for Mr. James as far as development there? 1 . Paul Krauss: I'm not aware of how that was raised when Charlie came in 3 -4 years ago but we'd have to look into that. There's no new ones. There's no new issues being generated. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there any other discussion? ' Councilwoman Dimier: My last question was, when we redo this here, there's going to be an old segment of West 78th Street that's going to be left.' Is there any plans to upgrade that or beautify that or do anything with that at all? This plan doesn't seem to address that. 1 12 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 • Charles Folch: The...has been discussed previously amongst the property owners that it was their desire to see or to have that existing right -of -way vacated such that part of it will be constructed...that's there now. Given that the access off of CR 17 will likely be the right -in /right -out movement. E 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So that's no longer a city street then or that segment will be? Charles Folch: At such time that the vacation takes place. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And I guess then my comment would be that I think that Mr. James' appears to have worked really hard with the former city staff and present staff as well and also with the neighboring property in trying to come up with what's fair to all and I think I would favor tabling this. But I also would like to see that the Burdick's are included in the negotiations if it affects them in any way. Mayor Chmiel: Richard, do you have any comments? Councilman Wing: I think the entire detachment proposal really isn't ready for Council and I don't have anything to discuss. I'd like to see it redefined and refined and then re- represented at a later date so I favor table also. 1 Councilman Workman: No, I think we only have one option and that's to, I remember, the one thing I remember is Charlie James being very cooperative and this is kind of a shock to me that you don't know more about it and so if nobody apologizes to you tonight for anything else, I'll do so. This detachment has I been a lot of fun and 4 years I'll be on the Council, it will probably be around 4 more. 1 Councilman Mason: It sounds like it needs to be tabled. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I have a motion to have this tabled and brought back to Council at the next meeting? Is there an urgency with this because of TH 5 construction Charles? Charles Folch: No. The time line we're working with right now is basically... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So we have the time. Councilwoman Dimler: I move tabling. Councilman Workman: Second. 1 Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table the public hearing on the supplemental report to the feasibility study for West 78th Street Detachment Improvement Project 92 -3. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 1 13 1 1 , City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 II PUBLIC HEARING: FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE UPPER BLUFF CREEK AREA; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. PROJECT NO. II 91 -17. Public Present: II Name Address Ronald & Carol Entinger 8851 Audubon Road I Henry Wrase 8175 Hazeltine Blvd. Conrad Fiskness 8033 Cheyenne Avenue Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. II Earl Halasek Wilmer Molnau 8610 Galpin Blvd. 8541 Audubon Road James R. Hill 2400 CR 42, Burnsville II Betty & Larry VanDeVeire 4980 CR 10E, Chaska Michael Klingelhutz 8601 Great Plains Blvd. Gary Harkey 3471 W. 173rd, Jordan Hans Hagen 941 Hillwind Road, Minneapolis ' Doug Barinsky 8731 Audubon Don Patton Lake Susan Hills West Partnership Tom & Marion Michel 8941 Audubon Road II Dave Stockdale 7210 Galpin Road Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The project consultant engineer Mr. Bob Schunicht is here tonight to give a presentation on the II x feasibility study. If there are those of you tonight that are here on this particular item, we do have handouts that follow some of the information that will be provided on the overheads. If you raise you hands I can have Phil pass I those out for you. Bob Schunicht: In 1991 the city of Chanhassen...2,800 acres of land to it's II urban service area and much of this land is in the western part of the city between Lyman Blvd. on the south, Audubon on the east and TH 41 on the west going up to this development... So at the time this was added, the city also II aut horized the study to take a look at the sanitary sewer and watermain that were necessary to serve both this area and the whole rest of the city. So the studies that were just recently completed dealt with 3 things. First of all, was what is the sanitary sewer and watermain system... How much does it cost and how should we pay. And the answer to how should we pay...uniform assessment II citywide or...based on a uniform citywide cost. So those are the results of that overall study. Now at the same time the studies were done, the city received petitions for improvements for the southern portion of this new urban l area and basically that's what we're here to talk about tonight. ...trunk sanitary sewer and watermain for the southern portion of that new urbanized area. So basically what we're looking at is the area between Lyman Blvd. on the 11 south, TH 5 on the north, approximately Audubon Road here and then going over to the western city limits all the way over to the Arboretum. And the study area was initiated by a petition. And this lightly shaded area in orange represents II the property...55% of the land mass in the project area that petitioned for. improvements that we're going to be discussing tonight. Now taking a look at the sanitary sewer system, again we're looking at Lyman Blvd. on the south, TH 5, Audubon Road here and TH 41 over here. The main feature of the sanitary II 14 II 11 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 sewer system is their lift station located in the vicinity of Lyman Blvd. and Audubon Road. Basically that lift station will take the waste water from most of the western portion of the city of Chanhassen and pump it in a designated ' gravity sewer along Audubon. Gravity sewer along future West Lake Drive into something called the existing Lake Ann sewer. SO the lift station is taking all the flow from the system that it brings to it, pumping it over to an existing system and flows down through Eden Prairie over across the river...treatment plant. So that's the sanitary sewer system. The watermain system again looking at this map which is a little bit different scale than...has to go a little bit further to the north, but here this to get you oriented. This is Lyman Blvd. on the south, TH 5 here, Galpin and TH 41. Existing well up here by Lake Ann. For the first phase of the watermain improvements, which is a watermain down in this area. I did neglect to mention, we were talking about sanitary sewers, this is...so for discussion purposes we divided it into two phases. Phase 1 being basically south of the railroad and Phase 2 being north of the railroad. I'd like to point out that that's an arbitrary phase line for discussion purposes. We can change that...but for discussion purposes tonight, Phase 1 and Phase 2 are the railroad. Phase 1 of the watermain...to serve that Phase 1 area south of the railroad. As we get into Phase 2, then we have to bring a line from the existing...down Galpin and along the roadway system that you see in the area so Phase 2 watermain gets a little bit more expensive... Also I'd like to point out that the future reservoir shown at TH 41...development of the area. We looked at the cost of the improvements and if you see on your handout, and we have also a part of this...but basically we're looking at dividing into two phases the total sanitary sewer cost of $2.86 million dollar. Watermain about $2.37 million dollars of the total cost to about $5.2 million dollars. As I mentioned earlier, the proposal, the census...citywide assessment policy based • f on for trunk sanitary sewer, $970.00 per residential equivalent unit and for the watermain... Looking at how those assessments affect the property out there, again the brown or orange area is the project area. The sanitary sewer base map which is shown here. The proposal is to assess everybody in the pocket area with the exception of the recently platted large lot single family...shown on the previous slide. And we've shown, as I mentioned, Phase 1. The Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction at it's present time is right now but Phase 1 improvements are very expensive. They got to put a lift station in to get the sanitary sewer all the way over to the Lake Ann trunk. The Phase 1 assessment boundary is including two pieces of property north of the railroad. One is being proposed by Hans Hagen on this property over here just east of the McGlynn's property. So this is the assessment boundary... One of the things we took a look at is - green acres. Green acres being when a property's on green acres it means that it cannot be actively assessed for utility improvements. If you take a look at green acres, you'll see some of the parcels have green acres on it. There's two of the parcels that petitioned for the improvements that have green acres on . them. The Rod Grams property and the Hans Hagen property. If we take a look at the green acres and take a look at the revenue versus the cost within this area for Phase 1. If we assume that the properties that have petitioned for improvements come off of green acres, then we've got enough revenue within 2% of our projections to pay for the Phase 1 improvements. And then it would be similar things on Phase 2 because there's...green acres in Phase 2 so from looking at it and looking at the assessments and revenues based on these two properties coming off with the development, that green acres should not have a significant affect on the city's ability to finance it. So with that I'd like - r 15 • -- - -- -_ -- - _ - 1 .City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 to turn the hearing back to Mayor Chmiel for any questions from the Council or from the audience. 11 Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Anyone from the audience that would like to come forward and indicate your concerns. Please state your name and your address and what your question is. Marion Michel: I'm Marion Michel and I'm on 8941 Audubon Road. I didn't understand what he said about green acres exactly so I'm just going to go ahead with what I have planned to say. Okay? Alright, I come to appeal to some people that have roots and know what the feeling of roots are. My grandparents cleared the property that I'm on and I was born there. After a time I came back and bought the place and I also hope to appeal to people that have historic feelings to save some of the old beautiful homes around here which one I have. I hope to keep it historical. I haven't done much inside. It still has the old 11 sink, the old claw bathtub and windmill water. I know I'm supposed to role with the flow but I just don't want to. I hope someday, there will be no way I can come up with $22,000.00. I thought I was ready for this but I guess I'm not. Mayor Chmiel: That's alright. Just take your time. Marion Michel: If there's a deferment somehow where it only costs very little money, maybe I can do it. But I'm on a fixed income and I cannot. I hope that I can keep this place and possibly my grandson can come after me. They love it. They love the fishing. They love Minnesota, even though they'refrom California. If you've driven by the place, it's on the end of Audubon and Lyman. If you're familiar with it. The shed is going to fall any time. But the house is still charming. I do not plan on making a bed and breakfast. I just want to keep it like it is. I couldn't possibly do it anyway, it's too I costly. I hope, I do not want a new house. Somebody says that's simple, just . go build a new house. I don't want a new house. My only reason to be here in Minnesota is to live in this place and I hope I can stay there. As long as I can get out there and mow the lawn and plant my flowers and watch the trees grow, it as.... nt:, r f ,,. 1 hated to give it up .but I couldn't possibly hold 105 acres. I have lovey neighbors and I'm happy for that but for me to put 10 houses on that property would positively it's historic charm and you would devour the house, which you are going to do with the other beautiful houses up on that road. What the others do is their business but I hate to even see them - go. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. II Councilman Wing: Could I just clarify that? In every situation like this that I've been on this Council in the last year, these really haven't been an issue. We haven't forced development. We haven't forced sale. Residents such as this we've, at least in my year on the Council we've given them a single assessment II until development. Is that what we're looking at here? Are we in that condition now, that situation now? In fact are her concerns not? Don Ashworth: I have to believe that there are a number of solutions available so we don't have to drive a lady like this off of her property. You're exactly right. We've not done that in the past and I know of no reason that we're going 11 to start doing it currently. Did you wish to? 16 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 • Mayor Chmiel: No, I think you probably explained it. Councilman Wing: So it might preclude some others that are concerned if we have these type of individual homeowners who are looking at single assessments until development time. Is that what your intent is Don? Don Ashworth: Bob, would you go through the response to that question? , Bob Schunicht: I'd just like, a couple things I'd like to mention about Mrs. Mitchell is it? Mayor Chmiel: Michel. Bob Schunicht: Is talking about as far as the...green acres so that's one thing. There are, the parcels that you mentioned...as far as single assessments. There are 11 of those that we can count on here. We can look at that fit in that category. ...again we're talking about major property owners are asking for the improvements. They're not going to affect those other parcels, the small parcels... Again you're talking about, I mentioned that we were within 2%. If you assess all those parcels, assessed all those parcels the way...talked about, you'd be 2'c above the revenues...so the estimates are even that close so it doesn't have a major effect on the city... Does that answer your question? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Being that it is green acres. Until she develops her property, that's when that assessment becomes due. • Councilwoman Dimler: Bob, just for clarification. The $22,450.00 is for all 5.1 acres right? 5.01. Bob Schunicht: The way...take a look at "each individual parcel. Determine what was wetland and what was buildable area and then assign that area to that and then I think...units per acres and that's the units that we talk about. 1 Councilman Wing: But she's really looking at about $2,245.00 then? Bob Schunicht: That will be the full assessment, expected assessment for that 1 property. Councilman Wing: $2,200.00 ?. 1 Bob Schunicht: Yeah. Councilwoman Dimler: So if we go with the one unit now, what would that be t about? Bob Schunicht: That would be the $970.00 for sewer and $1,275.00 for water so about $2,200.00. • Councilwoman Dimler: Oh okay. So it doesn't change. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That's right. 17 'City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 1 Wayne Bongard: I'm Wayne Bongard and I'm neighbors to this nice lady. I have a couple concerns. One is I live as well along Audubon Road. I think it's a * of a place to live. Why do we have all these exemptions in that particular area? They're landowners. We've got 5-or 6, 5 -10 acre parcels so on and so forth and they're going to assess all these landowners, myself included. We happen to ' have 5 acres or 8 acres or 10 acres and we're going to get assessed. Gosh, somebody's going to put 10 homes on this or 15 homes and you're going to be assessed 20- 25- 30 -35- 40,000 dollars. In my particular case, it's going to be kind of an expensive development because they're going to have to push a house down. They're going to have to push a barn down. The barn building and whatever. That's okay. I'd be more than happy to let somebody do that. Come on up. Bring your dozers in but just write the check in advance. I don't think II that's going to happen. I don't think any of these people bought that real estate and that acreage with that in mind. However, if we've got a hungry developer, boy send them up here. We'll negotiate that and we'll make it ' happen. And then you guys can get 10 times $2,200.00 - $2,300.00 in assessment for your sewer and water. But until that happens, you're going to have a tough time getting it up on that end of town. What I'm concerned about as well, why do we have this exempt, this large exempt area over here? I think we've got 20 -30 -40 homes over there. We've got a bunch of homes over here. They don't need sewer and water because they've got a well? They've got a drainage system. They got what. Why is that exempt I would like to know? The other thing I ' would like to tell you is that I also understand why the sewer system is coming in. Because we need industry and we need development and we need to cooperate with that to enhance our community and that's the industrial property to the west of Audubon. I happen to be involved in a little bit of it. Have a little privy information to what may happen and if you really need to do this, and I understand we need to do it, then let's charge it to the ** industrial park. If they can't afford, if we can't. If I can't afford to pay another $200,000.00 to get sewer and water into that area, or Ryan Development or whoever the * it is, if we can't afford another couple hundred thousand dollars without getting on somebody's landowners, homeowners and we've got to tax them $20,000.00, or 1 - assess them 20- 30- 40,000 dollars, we're not doing our jobs guys. You know, come on. Hit me one more time. Hit industry one more time. We're good at that. We take it but leave the poor SOB that's living there, leave them alone. Put it where it belongs. Rod Grams. I know well. I know what he intends to do. Hey, if some poor bugger has to pay, if he's going to raise his lot price by 3 -4 -500 bucks to cover 30 lots, raise it. ...which I'm part of, and Ryan ' Development, if we've got to raise it, the lot price $10,000.00, so be it. That's not going to chase the industrialist away. That's not going to chase the person that really wants to be out here. But what you're going to do is you're going to hurt a whole bunch of people and you're going to get a black eye as a II result of it so I really think we should look at that. Run the sewer by. Tap me. Tap all these other people for one hook -up. And we've got somebody, if any of you people want to come up and develop that property, belly up to the bar. Buy the land, the sewer's running by, run the T off and then you pay it. That's really how it should work guys, in my estimation. So if we go down this road, we exempt all these various different people and you keep after these 5 people along Audubon Road I can assure you, we're going to have a * of a fight. I'm II done. Thank you very much for your time. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? 18 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 Doug Barinsky: Good evening. I'm Doug Barinsky at 8731 Audubon. I have the other green acres parcel there on the east side. It just amazes me to, it seems like every time there's something'going on in our direction we end up having to appear in front of the City Council. I guess it's been fun a little bit but this is about the third time for me in 3 years and this one really disappoints me when we see the kind of stress that we have to put somebody like Mrs. Michel through. 5 years ago when I moved out there it was for the interition of living there. To have a house and a barn and a couple acres and horses for my kids. About 1 1/2 years ago we sat through the meetings in this very room on the MUSA line and the land use plan and on more than one occasion during those meetings the question of assessments and taxes were brought up by many of us concerned property owners that lived out in that area. Several times also during that it was responded by both City and County officials that the change of status out there would not impact us unless we decided to develop. If we want to replay the tapes that we make, I think you can go back and find out who made those statements. I am one of the 5 property owners on that east side and we think that it's a form of economic greenmail to see what's being proposed and the lack of sensitivity with the city planners in this regard. Somebody decided that unless these 5 people on this side of the road out there were going to make an issue out of it, they could just ante up for 25- 30- 40,000 dollars. My own share is to be $38,000.00 if this is approved and I just have to accept it and plan to move and develop which obviously hasn't been my plan in the nearby or I'm going to pay a $38,000.00 premium for the right to continue to live there. It's my understanding just because I have green acres that yes, that qualifies me for a deferment but that kind of assessment still rides over my title and if I decided to sell that to a similiar owner who wanted to use it the way I have, that'd have to be paid up. So it's a bit misleading to tell Mrs. Michels that yeah, 1 just defer it and everything will be fine. I propose that the 5 properties on the east side of Audubon be allowed to participate in this project on an individual basis. If they do want to develop, now or later, they can be assessed along these plans. If at this time they don't want to develop but they feel they have a need for city sewer and water service, allow them to take the one tie in. I may elect to do that. I think that might be my best option. But if they also have satisfactory water and sewer and have a new system that's been put in, I don't even understand why they should get the one assessment at this point in time. I guess as a close, I don't think we should be forced to subsidize the actual development costs as Wayne was indicating on the west side. I can appreciate their petition. If I was in the development business, this is exactly what I would want to do if I was one of the owners but as a homeowner wanting to live there, -I don't think that this is right. What you're planning to do and I hope we can get consideration out of the Council. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else? Ron Entinger: Good evening. My name is Ron Entinger. I live at 8851 Audubon Road. I'm just to the east of the Michel's area. I have 10 acres and I'm not under the green acres deal. I had that removed approximately 2 years ago and I guess I didn't fight it. I didn't think it was that big of a deal, but apparently it's looking like I should have at the time now. I know there was a meeting earlier and I was, I got the mailing out and on it it said it included the area west of Audubon Road so I. filed it away thinking that didn't include me but I guess it does now when the second paper comes out and it says the area adjacent to and west of Audubon Road. And it was Michel's that found out that 19 - - _ -_ - • - - - - -- - - -- - - - i • City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 hey, we're all included and that's hqw we found out about it. I guess my thing too is that if in the main reason for the sewer and water needed out there is for the industrial and say commercial development and the development west of Audubon Road, I believe it's just fair that they should pay for it. What you're ' doing is taking my 10 acres, where I built a home 3 years ago. I have no choice at $31,000.00 is my assessment, I'd have to bulldoze the house. Divide it up and get rid of it and I'm not prepared to do that. I built the house with the intentions of having some type of green area around it. I planted probably 750 I trees in the last 3 years and that would be just 25 left if it gets divided into 14 lots like is planned. And I guess I'm in the same position where if it has to be an assessment of one, I can see that. I have no need for it. I'd be ' buying something I don't even need. I have my own well. I have my own sewer just as the exempt areas do to the west of us. My other question I have is concerning my property abuts to the bottom of Lyman Blvd. where there's a future watermain and a future sewer going in down there. What you're doing is if I were to develop my property is you have to take the sewer and water across a driveway easement about twice as far to go to the sewer and water where it is now. Whereas south of my property it runs right up to it and I'd find in the ' future if that would come up, I'd like to be considered in the future but not now. Thank you. ' Councilman Workman: Didn't the staff report state that there would be just one trunk for those east? In the middle paragraph doesn't it say specifically, and again a lot of other questions but isn't that what it's saying? .But it is saying deferring the rest. Is that what it's saying? I x Don Ashworth: Charles, I guess I would look to you. It would be my understanding that yes. We would only be assessing one but that if development would occur in the future, here is the maximum number of units that could go against the property. Councilman Workman: Is it considered a deferment though? ' Don Ashworth: As far as the assessment clock , 9 oing no. I mean as far as the accumlative interest going on top of it, no. II Ron Entinger: Your option is to defer it with or without... • II Don Ashworth: I believe the concept was one in which we were trying to establish kind of a constant unit charge basis for really all of the properties within that whole area, including north of TH 5 as well. That based on those II number of units that would be the charge back to those properties at this point in time. We would not automatically escalate that but as time went on, if the unit charge for the rest of the city rose from $1,200.00 to $1,400.00, it potentially could affect those owners if they developed 5 or 10 years from now. II Correct? Charles Folch: That's correct... II Wayne Bongard: Question. If the sewer comes by and if we agree, and I'm saying if we agree, everybody accepts one hook -up, that means we have for all practical II purposes, city water and sewer to the 7 acres. Now Carver County, State of Minnesota is not a friendly tax environment. I can see the County saying well, 20 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 geez are you lucky Mr. Bongard. You're only paying 13 rand now but you've got Y Y 9 Y P Y 9 9 Y 9 t city water and sewer and you've got a hook up here. God, that property must be } worth xxx and then the property goes or the taxes go up to 15, 17, 18, who the * knows where it stops. But in reality isn't that kind of how it works? You know you raise the value because you've got sewer and water running by and for sure if you pay for an access, then boy you've really... There's a T here and by gosh whether you plan on developing or don't developing it, I guess I really don't care. This is not an argumentive thing. This is from a sensible standpoint. What do you think would happen? ...would say by golly, are you lucky and are we lucky. Don Ashworth: Not immediately. Wayne Bongard: No, not immediately, right. Give them a year or two. Ursula you know and I thinl, you also know there's a high probability that that could happen but I think our position is, run it down Audubon Road. We don't give a darn but if you start nailing us for 13 spots, 15 spots, all spots, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, which I think I heard, depending on language...ain't going to put up with it. Unless you get all these exempt people in here that have sewer and water and well and all those other things. Don Ashworth: At one point in time all of the properties that are here were valued at $2,000.00, $2,500.00 per acre. At the time that you purchased. ' Wayne Bongard: Al liked to sell them for $8,000.00 to $10,000.00. I think most of us paid that much... Don Ashworth: You recognize that the value of the property was increasing. In the years that you purchased, you recognize that the value of the property was increasing. You probably paid 8, 10 or $12,000.00 an acre. At some point in time you know that property will be valued potentially. Wayne Bongard: ...now for 100 grand. ' Don Ashworth: But the sewer and water I don't see where that's going to have any. Wayne Bongard: We're messing with insignificants here. What's important is what's going to happen now in the lifetime of the people living there and leave them be comfortable. Let's let well enough alone. Let these people be comfortable. Charge us on one hand $2,500.0a and call it done. Mayor Chmiel: We have a few other people who would like to make some comments. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, could I just briefly? Every comment so far has been based on concern for my 5, 10, 15 acres. The staff report we have recommends single unit charges of $2,245.00. This Council has never forced development. We have never forced the loss or sale of lane. They don't encourage development if it means those occurrences. As a matter of fact, I think the impact on my neighbors at the west end has been negative. And it's my understanding and I will just speak for the Council, I believe it's our intent to probably favor one unit charge per resident until such time that it would develop and that's included in these costs so rather than keep listening to 21 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 these same comments, I think these people can feel somewhat comfortable and you'll have to support this position. Mayor Chmiel: Right. ' Councilman Wing: We're not coming after you for $22,000.00. At the very most it's going to be a single unit charge and that has been debated here for hours that that does add value to the property. You do have access and you're going ' to pay the $2,245.00 but you're not going to pay $22,000.00 until such time as you decide to plat that, develop it and hook up the additional lots. So the arguments are getting kind of, or the property is lost through debt. So the comments tonight are kind of getting a little repetitious and either move on, if there's any other problems. Doug Barinsky: Can we ask one more question for clarification and then we'll ' get off of that issue? I just don't want any confusion. There seems to be some about what the word deferred assessment means because this plan as written and as fully explained to me by city staff, is not single at this point. The way it's written it is for multi based on 13 to 17 lots and that's the way it's ' being presented right now and it's going to have to changed before it fits what Mr. Wing is stating. We don't want to learn later that oh by the way, yeah we only charged you for one unit. We deferred the other because it will hang over our titles and we're also concerned about that. Thank you. Don Patton: Mr. Mayor, Council. My name is Don Patton. You should have I received a letter from the Lake Susan Hilis Partnership. Just to get the topics. One of the other gentleman made the point that, didn't you get the letter in your packet? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Patton: In the original advertising it did state west of Audubon, north of ' Lyman, south of TH 5 and I think east of 4 and for that reason we didn't pay attention to probably as early as we should. One of the reasons that we didn't pay attention, as a part of developing the Third Addition for Lake Susan Hills, the Third Addition for Lake Susan, we actually had to provide service west of Audubon at the city's request thinking that that would take care of that cost and access. And you see our request built into that. The other thing, in - working with staff over the years, I wanted to just clarify one thing. In the ' trunk sanitary and trunk water cost. Those are shown as $970.00 and $1,275.00. I think within the last three years those have been down around the 5 to 6 to 700. Have they been increased from this 6 to $1,200.00 level in the last year II or so? Bob Schunicht: They were raised...overall citywide system... Previously the city did not have citywide... ' Don Patton: So this is a different fee then? There was a trunk fee, a lateral fee but there will not be the access fee that have been charged in the past? Is that correct? Charles Folch: If a property pays a trunk assessment, let me go with the other reversal. If a property is now assessed for a trunk benefit and some future 22 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 - 1 point in time they subdivide the property and they come in for a hook -up, at that time prior to the city's hook -up charge policy, we recover those charges for a trunk assessment that was not paid previously. Similar analogous is on ' connection charge which if a lateral assessment has not been paid on a property that develops...in the future when they come in for building permits, then you collect the collection charge. Recover the cost for a lateral assessment that you did not previously pay for. - Don Patton: So it's not a double cost? Charles Folch: No. Don Patton: Mr. Mayor knows that I'm always looking for. 1 Mayor Chmiel: No, it shouldn't be a double cost. Charles Folch: There is a trunk charge and a lateral charge but... 1 Don Patton: The other thing, the property, the Outlot A that I'm speaking of which is designated by 2, as a part of the planning that we did with the city back in 1987, the city required us to have that as a multi- family property. It is not accessible and we would expect that to remain under green acres because it can't be developed at this point. The partnership has paid dearly for a lot of assessment to try to hang onto this land through the years. This includes, for some of the new staff or for some of the new Council and•new staff, the partnership dedicated all of the right -of -way for CR 17 at no cost to anyone. Obviously it did help the development but it was also a real charge that was a cost on that. But that will be green acres? Is that correct? And it will stay because it is not accessible. Right? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Right. Don Patton: Thank you. Conrad Fiskness: Conrad Fiskness from Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District. A quick question with regard to the storm water planning for this area. Would it be done under the umbrella of the storm water management plan that you're working on? Would it be done prior to that? Subsequent? - Charles Folch: It's being done as part of the storm water management... 1 Conrad Fiskness: As you may know I've been kind of on a one man crusade to look at the handling of storm water along Bluff Creek. Bluff Creek is unique in that 'it has no bodies of water along it's course which means that as development occurs, there's going to be a considerable amount of water that will be coming into this stream bed and I've been encouraging that this be looked at in terms of upland storage, water retention facilities along it's course before land gets developed and opportunities to do some of these things are forever gone. I just wish to make that point. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Anyone else? Al. 1 1 23 1 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 Al Klingelhutz: Mr. Holasek, Earl Holasek who owns the portion just north of ' the railroad tracks and west of Galpin Blvd. has asked me to speak for him. Is that actually in the assessment area at the present time? We know it's under. ' • Bob Schunicht: This parcel right here? Al Klingelhutz: Right. 11 Bob Schunicht: It's in the sanitary sewer assessment boundary. It's not in the water assessment boundary. So your sewer assessment. ' Al Klingelhutz: Is that actually part of the Bluff Creek Watershed District or is that the Hazeltine Watershed District? Bob Schunicht: It's actually in, most of it drains toward Hazeltine...part of the Hazeltine watershed. There are basically two options for that property depending on the availability of capacity and access to sewer. It's possible that that could go to Chaska but the cost of the system...shows the lift station ' for that property taking it into Chanhassen. Al Klingelhutz: I know it's in, the land is in Chanhassen. Now Earl has been there for many years and you probably all know he's in the greenhouse business. What would be the total assessment against that property? What's the figure on that? Bob Schunicht: $140,000.00 sanitary sewer based on a total of 145 units. And there's actually, the watermain would be about... Al Klingelhutz: Earl's biggest concern is he has a farm down in Golden Valley ' and that's before the green acres thing was put in and he actually, him and his folks were actually forced to sell out because of these tremendous assessments on the property. Now you're saying there's about $180,000.00 on the sewer on that property? Bob Schunicht: $140,000.00 on the sewer and... ' Al Klingelhutz: On the water. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. A total of $325,000.00. Al Klingelhutz: A total of $325,000.00. What have you got there Earl? 45 -50 acres? Earl Holasek: We have 44 acres. Mayor Chmiel: 44.06. Earl Holasek: That's ridiculous because the water's going to the Hazeltine Lake. Why would they want to pump it uphill the wrong way? That's stupid. Bob Schunicht: The sanitary sewer that's.going to be pumped. The city_of Chanhassen has a sanitary sewer and so does the city of Chaska. If you were in the city of Chaska for example, you'd probably into their system. If you're 1 1 24 • City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 in Chanhassen, then there's a likelihood that you would go into Chanhassen system although with Chanhassen and Chaska would be able to work out a deal • where you can go into Chaska's system, that might happen. The charge with you being the city of Chanhassen will still be the same though. $970.00 for sanitary sewer and $1,275.00 for water because that's probably in the city of Chanhassen. ' Earl Holasek: You know this is farmland yet. There's no way in * a guy could farm that kind of land. Councilman Wing: Is this one of the parcels, the 11 parcels that's? Bob Schunicht: No. It's a parcel that's on green acres but it is a large parcel. The 11 parcels that we're talking about is the parcels that's shown in orange on this map... Some of the parcels are double because they're under 10 acres but they're... , Councilman Workman: You're talking about a sanitary sewer charge. He might be thinking of a storm sewer, correct? Bob Schunicht: Yeah, there's no storm sewer charge as a part of this but I think what he's saying is the natural drainage for the property goes into Chaska. When Chaska gets their treatment plant problems worked out...and sewer capacity, it's likely that Chanhassen's staff and Chaska's staff will be talking about a project where that may go into Chaska. But whether it goes into Chaska or Chanhassen...the ultimate charge that they see are the... Councilman Workman: There's nothing that's related to a sanitary sewer that's going into Lake Hazeltine I hope. Bob Schunicht: No. ...says the water runs. Councilwoman Dimler: I think we're past that stage. 1 Al Klingelhutz: Well a gravity flow sewer line would run towards Hazeltine and into Chaska. A lift station could take care of the property in Chanhassen. I guess Earl's biggest concern, and probably the same concern I had 2 weeks ago, is $140,000.00 assessment against 44 acres of land, what will be done on that assessment because it's in green acres? Will the charge per unit on that be, what is the sewer assessment? 1 Bob Schunicht: $970.00. Al Klingelhutz: $975.00 per unit. Stay without interest and only be increased 1 by inflation? Mayor Chmiel: I was talking and I wasn't listening Al. What was that you said regarding inflation? Al Klingelhutz: Well he's got $140,000.00 worth of assessments on the property now and if that property because it's in green acres, stayed in the same service and use it's in at the present time, that $140,000.00 would not be added to with interest. But the possibility of the charge on that could increase if the 25 City•Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 overall city sewer plan would increase from $925.00 to $1,200.00. Is that the way it's going to be figured on that? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 11 Al Klingelhutz: Earl, if you ever want to sell that property, I'm talking to Earl now to satisfy what he... Mayor Chmiel: No sales here. Al Klingelhutz: The assessment would be against your property of $140,000.00. ' Earl Holasek: For farmland. Who the * wants sewer out there in the first place? I don't need no sewer there. I got my own sewer system, Al Klingelhutz: I know that. And he don't plan on changing it. He's got a terrific investment in his greenhouses and stuff there at the present time. And we realize that. I hope it's something you will take into consideration because I'd sure hate to see his greenhouses be moved out of Chanhassen because I think II they provide a tremendous service to the city. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Al. Anyone else? Larry VanDeVeire: Yes, I'm Larry VanDeVeire. I own parcel 37. This came as a little bit of a surprise to me because I thought everything was going to be south of TH 5 and I just found out that our property jumps up into the Bluff Creek district. Anyway I guess my concern was that there was going to be a TH 5 coridor study done. I guess right now the land is zoned residential. I guess I don't feel the land is really suited for that. I guess my major concern ' is that again on assessments and size of the sewer, if the size of the sewer at this time would change if there was a possibility of rezoning it in the future. If it would be adequate at this time if it's put through and also this isn't green acre property and I guess I'm wondering how that is handled as far as assessments go. At this time I guess it's zoned residential. I don't feel the property is sellable. And especially with water and sewer in there. I guess I ' just don't feel that it's adequate as far as residential property being on the corner. I was wondering how the assessments would be handled on a property that isn't green acres. Bob Schunicht: ...were changed to a higher density...the answer is yes. The sewer's big enough to handle those kinds of changes in the property... Second thing is that the proposed residential...based on residential. If you were to ' develop the land use. Larry VanDeVeire: Even though it isn't green acres? Even though I don't live there? ' Bob Schunicht: I can't...exactly but they're shown at a certain kind of density residential. Larry VanDeVeire: Yeah, medium density residential I think it was. I guess like I say, I think I'm coming in here kind of blind. - r 26 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 Bob Schunicht: That happens to be the same charge for medium density residential... If you happened to change the land use and got more use out of it, you'd pay more... Larry VanDeVeire: Same type of thing applies though as far as unit acres. 1 unit acres applied right now until it is developed? 1 Bob Schunicht: If your property is on green acres. Larry VanDeVeire: It's not green acres. 1 Councilman Workman: How come I was thinking about you Larry, believe it or not. I didn't recognize you with that full beard there. How come this did get pulled in? I don't understand. Bob Schunicht: The assessment column. Councilman Workman: And maybe you want it in and maybe you're ready to get going. I know from the comp plan debate who was a little unsure about where we'd zone it but. Bob Schunicht: Okay what happened this area is a MUSA area that you have in the orange except the 1995 study area. And for the Lake Ann...the boundary for that came down something like this. So everything here, in that area has already been assessed for trunk sanitary sewer...so the only thing left in the MUSA that hasn't been a part of a project or served with anything, is this property right there. Councilman Workman: And then all of this. l , Bob Schunicht: So what this does, when this project gets done, this completes the assessments for everything in the MUSA that... Larry VanDeVeire: Then do I understand that it would be assessed at 1 unit per ' acre even though? Bob Schunicht: ...16 units. 1 Larry VanDeVeire: 16 units? Okay, I guess then I would like to see something happen as far as the corridor study because I'm looking at, I don't know, 1 I never took out the wetlands or something like that but I'm looking at $90,000.00 and a piece of property that there isn't a residential developer in the area here I'm sure that want it. I guess I'm kind of between a rock and a - hard place as far as which gets done first. I'd like to see something happen as far as the TH 5 corridor study happen before the dollars have to start flowing. They sure aren't in my pocket. Bob Schunicht: The other thing...Phase 2 so...corridor study may happen. You may have more information by the time... Larry VanDeVeire: What type of timeframe is there as far as assessments go? When do they start? 27 'City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 1 Bob Schunicht: The assessment for the improvements that are being discussed ' tonight would be November of next yeat, so November of 1993. They would determine taxes in May of 1994 for Phase 1...So Phase 2, the earliest would be...I imagine May of 1995... You've got a ways yet. Lots of things could happen between then. Mayor Chmiel: You may win the lottery. ' Councilman Workman: Could I ask a real quick question? Why, and Wayne raised the question. Why have we left Timberwood out of this? ' Bob Schunicht: In looking at the overall...sanitary sewer and watermain system, ..won't do anything with them. It's been our experience in other communities where we have homes that have been built on individual 5 acre parcels around town and stuff like that...so when we did that we made the decision to leave out the large lot, single family developments that were part of the major development but to include the individual parcels... Now likely you might get some large lot development... Henry Wrase: Henry Wrase, 8175 Hazeltine Blvd.. Just a question on 41, this residential. What's the property along TH 41, is that residential? Going to be residential or commercial? Mayor Chmiel: Paul, can you answer that? .. II Paul Krauss: I believe that entire area is guided for office /industrial use ' ultimately. Henry Wrase: And I have two residences on there, I will be charged as a resident or will I be charged commercial? Paul Krauss: That I don't know. Bob Schunicht: The Council said that anybody....parcel would be charged one unit. Henry Wrase: Thank you. Wilmer Molnau: I didn't get too excited about this because I was at one of with you at the last meeting. At the last meeting I was told all the assessments would be deferred until we use them. Now I hear we're going to possibly be assessed for one hook -up or more. I'd like to ask where is the sewer going to ' run on Audubon Road? Bob Schunicht: West side. Wilmer Molnau: On the west side of what? Of the road? Bob Schunicht: Off on the shoulder. Or not off on the shoulder but off on the boulevard. Wilmer Molnau: Is that why they didn't tar the second lane? 1 28 '1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: It might be. Bob Schunicht: It's not the intention to tear up the road. It's the intention to put it in the city's right -of -way for an easement...so the roadway will stay intact. Wilmer Molnau: Well that will interfere with the high lines. You'll have to move the high lines again I suppose. Bob Schunicht: We'll have to work around the high lines. Wilmer Molnau: Good, because they took it away from my side and I don't want it back. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Hans Hagen: My name is Hans Hagen. We have a purchase agreement on parcel number 11. We have submitted a plan to the city for development of 141 single family lots. We note that the proposed first phase stops at the railroad and we would like to have the Mayor and Council and staff consider extending that so we could develop, if you go ahead with the sanitary sewer, we would like to develop this year. Assuming if the project does go ahead, there was a question with regard to'the finances and would this property be pulled out of green acres and it would. It would be our intention to, if it's approved, to develop it as early as possible and therefore we would pull that parcel out of green acres so that those funds could be used in your calculation for hook -ups. Thank you. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Resident: There was a question back here on timing. Would this be a project 1 this summer? Mayor Chmiel: We haven't determined that as of yet, no. 1 Bob Worthington: Mr. Mayor, members of Council I'm Bob Worthington with Opus Corporation, 9900 Bren Road East, Minnetonka. And for those of you who do not know, we are very close to entering into an agreement with the Chaska Gateway Partners for purposes of becoming the exclusive development agent and the marketing agent for that property. Once that agreement is entered into, then we will be in a position to develop a concept plan and come before the City. Make them aware of what that concept plan would be and hopefully while that process is taking place, a user will come along who has some interest in constructing a building on a portion of that property. And depending upon where the sewer and . the water and the improvements to the streets are at that time, will determine the timing of that development. So we're here basically to support what the city is doing relative to extending sewer and water. We think it's consistent with your comprehensive planning. We think it's consistent with the MUSA line debate and discussion that you had. Whether it should be extended or not extended and we hope that we can become a productive agent in assisting not only the partnership but the city in implementing it's plans. So•I thought that I would get that commercial out of the way first. And then we have several questions that I don't think were in a position to ask the Council to answer this evening but we at least want to raise and kind of get them out on the table 1 29 1 • . 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 so it can be considered, depending upon what your going to do this evening in ' terms of this feasibility report. The first question I think has been answered and that is yes, assessments will be deferred and await until development occurs on property with the exception of some minimum unit costs which will be assessed 11 against the property depending upon what the use of that property might be. Is that a correct interpretation? Bob Schunicht: That's correct for small parcels...the parcels that we're talking about, the green acres shown on here, the orange parcels...assessments will be levied at one unit for people who have property but don't want... ' Bob Worthington: Okay then in Phase 2, Phase 1, my interpretation is incorrect? Okay. That means that even if we phased the property, as soon as • the sewer and water becomes available to that property it becomes due on the assessment rolls right after that? Bob Schunicht: I think for your purposes that you should assume that...eastern edge of your property... • Bob Worthington: Okay. Well, that's a concern and it's a policy discussion that we hope that we can have before you proceed with final implementation of ' engineering drawings and specifications because we're very concerned over the fact that in reading the report we have noted that there are costs for sewer and water which, if implemented as they now stand, would have us having assessment on this property which would be 2 1/2 to sometimes 3 times above what we are paying in other communities and while that may not be a concern of the city's, it is a concern of ours because we want to have this property competitive with other communities so that it doesn't sit there while everybody else kind of has their property absorbed and then it's time for Chanhassen to get it's fair share. Because the way the market goes, it doesn't work that way. And we'd like to have Chanhassen first in and fully franchised with the benefits that II come. from the investment that it's making in these improvements. Could you explain for us this sub -trunk hook -up which would take place within the Phase 2 portion of the extension? There's a $520.00 sub -trunk hook -up for I believe it's sewer that's going to be charged to these properties in addition to the base unit cost. Or am I reading that wrong? • Bob Schunicht: There's a...property north of TH 5 that is going into one sub 11 district. The other sub district... Bob Worthington: On page 20, bottom of the page, the second to the last • ' sentence. Bob Schunicht: What's the title of the issue? Bob Worthington: It's hook -up charge summary. It says property served by the sub -trunk sewer and lift station should be assessed a sub -trunk hook -up charge of $520.00 per unit. Bob Schunicht: That's the one...property.up here north of TH 5 and west of • Galpin. That's discussing, what's happening...so it's a different piece of property. ...your property is $970.00 per unit for sewer... There are two separate... (� 1 30 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 Bob Worthington: So there's not a double assessment? Bob Schunicht: No. Just one... ' Bob Worthington: Very good. I have a couple of more questions Mr. Mayor but I think beyond this our interest would be, if you decide to adopt the feasibility report this evening with some of these questions unanswered, we would like to have the opportunity of sitting down with the staff and the consulting engineer to have some of these concerns kind of worked out so that when it comes back for action for engineering drawings and specifications, these concerns have been covered. If you would like to defer a decision this evening on this so we can work out these concerns along with some of the other neighbors who are here who also have concerns, then that would be fine with us as well. Mayor Chmiel: I'm already thinking in that line. Bob Worthington: Alright. So with that in mind I just wanted again to let you know that Opus is going to be active again within the community and we're hoping that we can produce some tax base and some new jobs and some new opportunities that your planning is calling for. ' Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. Tom Michel: I'm Tom Michel. I live on 8941 Audubon and I guess I didn't get my two cents worth in and everybody said they were tired of hearing all this stuff about the small homeowners and something but I have a question that kind of weighs on my mind because in the initial papers that were handed out by the city it said they had petitions from 55% of the property owners requesting this whole project. Now I could see after looking over the list that that couldn't possibly be true and then tonight they said no, that's not what they meant or not what, it's what they printed. It's who owns 55% of the land. Now I don't know where that's coming from but it would seem to me a guy could go out here and buy 555 acres of land and rope in another 450 people because they're the majority and I don't see how that works in this place. I got an awful lot of other questions about those that are exempted. Those parcels that are listed and aren't paying anything, including the City of Chanhassen who got a piece of property from one of those Lake Susan Hills things or something. Possibly the substation down there. I'm sure those people are not necessarily in agreement with the rest of it but I don't know how a few major property holders can control the entire project and as you've already heard, including people that aren't even involved in it and I'd kind of like to have some kind of an answer to that. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. We'll get back to you on that as well. Anyone else? 1 Dave Stockdale: My name is Dave Stockdale. I own the property at 8301 Audubon. I apologize, I just got back in town so I didn't have a lot of time to prepare. I had a question on number 4. That's basically a single family unit in an area that's industrial. I just wanted to clarify how you were assessing that. Bob Schunicht: As the Council indicated to people who own parcels, small 1 parcels with single family residence on it, would be one unit for right now but eventually that would be commercial... 31 City•Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 1 Dave Stockdale: Okay. A year and a half ago when they upgraded Audubon Road and I was assessed for sewer and water .at that point, is that something different than this? Charles Folch: I think you were assessed for lateral sewer and water which is ' service right to your property and this is for the overall system. The trunk and lateral, like the discussion we had with Don Patton before, we charged for both trunk and lateral... When we looked at the assessments for this whole II project, we'll be very careful... Dave Stockdale: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, I'd like to just make a quick comment on this. What I would like to see us do again is table this item and I'd like to have each of the questions that were asked this evening by staff ' to review and answer all those questions and bring this back to Council. Again I would say the total numbers of questions that have been asked, there's quite a few. I think it's going to take a little time for staff to pull it together and bring this back to Council by April 13th, which would be the first Council meeting in April. The second Monday of the month. And I think it's many questions that were asked that should be answered and they were good questions and I think the only way we can really do this justifiably is to understand the entirety of what the full package is. *So with that I'd like to just move on down through. I think we can sort of reserve most of our comments for that particular time as well rather than this evening to continue and go on. 1 a Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second your motion to table. Councilman Workman: Do we need to table or don't we need to keep the public hearing open? Mayor Chmiel: Well it would still be open with the tabling. Right counsel? ' Yes. Councilman Mason: I'll wait until next round. ' Councilman Workman: Well I guess I want to at least get the point out that we went through the MUSA expansion and we had a lot of fun doing that and Chanhassen's in a situation where we are growing. There's some people in the 11 room that are real happy that we are and there are some obviously that are not. And we've been wrestling with that and trying as best as we can. I guess I don't want to not be quiet tonight without anybody in the room feeling that I ' don't care that they are paying or have to pay 10 cents when they don't feel like they should. And that's the biggest frustration that we have in this growing, should we grow or shouldn't we grow climate. Our first speaker ' tonight, very emotional and I don't have any doubts that it is very emotional. I would probably only hope to be that emotional if I were in her situation. I used to be able to ride my bike when I was 8 years old by her house up to that little old wooden bridge and we used to sit on that bridge and feel it wiggle. The bridge isn't there anymore and I don't think anybody from Chaska's letting their 8 year old ride their bike up that road anymore so things have changed quite a bit. I just don't want anybody to leave tonight, I know Doug and the Barinsky's, we talked about, I don't know how you ended up with the MUSA ' 32 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 discussion but when we upgraded the road we had a lot of these same neighbors and we didn't put a trail in there which would have ruined trees and all sorts of other things and I think we're as sensitive as we could to this neighborhood. 1 think we're going to continue to be that way but it is touchy and it's tough to make these decisions and I think again we're going to be able to make good decisions but give it more time. I took more time than I wanted to. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Richard. Councilman Wing: I will assume the risk of this comment but it's one of the ' questions. I want to know more about Timberwood. Here we have this large mass of homes right in the very middle of this thing. Right in the center of it and I'm not picking on Timberwood at all but I'd like to know a little bit about 1 their development potential and some of the hazards and the options that they have as a neighborhood and landowners and given the size of their lot, being in the middle of this entire project, I guess I'm a little curious why they're not at least getting a unit charge per house as they're going to be included in this project. And maybe these are real simple explanations. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Paul could just touch on that. 1 Paul Krauss: Well, as Doug Barinsky indicated, there was a tremendous amount of discussion about the potential of assessments and what the city policies were and the comprehensive plan. One of the phenomena that happened in this city was prior to the 1987 ordinance or because of that 1987 change that it decreased the density to 1 per 10 units per acre. Prior to that coming into play we had a flurry of 2 1/2 acre lot subdivisions. Some of them might have 5 acre lots or whatever but they came in under that Statute. Timberwood was a result of that. There's another one north on Galpin. Sunridge Court technically wasn't exactly • that but was sort of the same thing. Anyway during the comprehensive plan there was a lot of discussion as to what sort of policy should be put in the comprehensive plan to recognize that as utilities are extended, it can cause hardship. And one of the things that we concluded at that time was that those modern '87 era subdivisions were compact, fairly dense, conglomerations of new homes with new on site sewer and new water. It's highly unlikely that they, I mean you might have a 5 acre lot in the middle of Timberwood but it's highly unlikely that somebody's going to be able to rezone that from rural residential to RSF and then run utilities past 18 angry neighbors who don't want it to get any kind of additional density in there. So it was concluded that they were pretty much as developed as they reasonably are going to be into the foreseeable future. As a consequence there was some policies written into the comprehensive plan that said that, I'm going to paraphrase it kind of but that wherever possible we would make accommodations for those Timberwood, Sunridge Court areas recognizing the history. Recognizing the lack of development potential. But we always tried to be studious to make sure that it was clear that the only reason we were able to do that is because these are very compact areas relatively and we can skirt them. And that you will have individual lots that may or may not have new homes or older homes on them up and down streets and utilities will run past them and that's where you get into the situations that you heard tonight. Councilman Workman: But couldn't I make that same argument for Wayne Bongard's 1 property or the Barinsky place? 1 33 1 City•Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 Councilman Wing: Lake Lucy Road. Paul Krauss: Well actually Lake Lucy Highlands is one of those subdivisions. Yeah you can but the problem we had is there's no way to identify this property over here has a brand new sewer system. Let's skip that. Next one has an old ' one so we should assess that. The utilities are run on a linear fashion and the only reason why these subdivisions could be given any kind of special consideration is because they are relatively compact and can avoid them to the ' best of your ability. There's an additional cost frankly to avoiding Timberwood. You deadhead the line around the thing so the properties north of there are going to probably have to pay, cover that cost. But that's the derivation of it. That's where that consideration first developed. It was 1 during the hearings of the comprehensive plan. Councilman Wing: Wouldn't Timberwood possibly benefit costwise by paying unit charge now projected to the future? Are they going to be hit a lot harder if they ever decide to run lines or hook up 10 -15 years from now? Paul Krauss: If they ever want to have utilities in Timberwood, I hope I'm not 1 your planner. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion? Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to table the pdblic hearing on II the feasibility study for trunk utility improvements to the Upper Bluff Creek area until the first City Council meeting in April. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: This will be back on our agenda by April 13th and all the questions that were asked this evening will be answered. Al Klingelhutz: One question. I think Earl would like to be involved if there's going to be any discussion about the land... Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Thank you. ' PUBLIC HEARING: AMERICANA BANK, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MARKET BOULEVARD AND WEST 79TH STREET: 1 A. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 11,468 SO. FT. TWO STORY BANK AND OFFICE BUILDING. B. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. II C. PUBLIC HEARING VACATING THE UNDERLYING PLAT AND EASEMENTS OF CROSSROADS PLAZA ADDITION. Sharmin Al -Jaff: The application is for a preliminary and final plat rather 1 than a preliminary plat only. Mayor Chmiel: Final plat. Did everyone hear that for item (b)? Final rather than preliminary. We already went through that. Sharmin Al -Jaff: There are three simple applications attached to this The site plan is for a bank office building. The design of the building 34 1 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 , reflects the future Market Square shopping center and the roofline of Country Suites Hotel. One attractive feature is a plaza at the intersection of West 79th and Market Blvd.. There are two access points to this site. One via West 79th Street and the second from Market Blvd.. Staff had some concerns regarding • the Market Blvd. curb cut allowing left turns but a traffic study performed by Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch concluded that a full access could be accommodated. The second application is for a subdivision. All we're doing is moving the former property line to the west to achieve an area of 70,000 square feet on Lot 1 which will be the future site for the Americana Bank. Lot 2 will be reserved for future development. The third application is vacation of underlying easements. They have a utility and drainage easement 5 feet on each side of the previous property line. Dividing property line. This would need to be vacated. The second vacation is for a cross access easement located along the common lot line of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. We're also recommending withdrawal of an originally approved site plan for Crossroads National Bank building as a condition of approval of the site plan for the Americana Bank. We are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the report. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Does the applicant wish to say something at this , particular time? Randy Schultz: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, good evening. I'm here again to talk to you about our desire to bring a new banking facility into the city of Chanhassen. In front of you is an artist drawing of what wd•believe this building will look like. We think it will be a very good addition to the city coming into one of your principle entrance spots into the city. We would expect to, with your approval tonight, to be working diligently to be erecting this building just as soon as we possibly can and we're looking very anxiously into coming into the City of Chanhassen. As some of you, as I'm sure all of you know at one point we were looking to construct a similar facility over on the corner of 78th and Market. In the Market Square development. Unfortunately that did not, the delays in that caused us to decide that this would be a better property for us and in working with Paul and Sharmin and the city staff we think we've developed a very excellent commercial development and banking facility for the city. If there's any questions, particular questions regarding the facility, I'd like to have our architect Kim Jacobsen address those. And I'll stay here for any questions also. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Is there anyone else at this time that , would like to address this issue? Okay. I'll bring it back to Council. I was just noticing that to make a few of the Council people happy, I was counting the total number of trees that are going to be planted on the site. There's going • to be 38 total trees. Just a little beyond what we normally have been thinking about. Councilman Workman: Rapid Oil has that on their plan too and they don't have ' them all there. Mayor Chmiel: If they don't, they should and we can make sure that they do. 1 Councilman Workman: I'd like it. 1 35 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Spring is coming. They can be planted. The other question that ' I do have. Having tenants within the building, will we have signs on the bank for tenants? Has that been considered? ' Randy Schultz: We have a monument sign and then we would have a, Kim do we have a sign by the front door or inside the lobby? Kim Jacobsen: Inside the lobby. II Randy Schultz: Just on the monument sign there by the plaza. ' Mayor Chmiel: I guess I want it to look like a bank and. Randy Schultz: We envision no signs up on the face of the building. Councilwoman Dimler: No outward signage then? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Ursula? ' Councilwoman Dimler: Are we just discussing the site plan review right now or I guess my other, one of my concerns is that I had was on the Market Blvd. access. 11 We're not discussing that right now? Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Otherwise I like the plan. Mayor Chmiel: Well I shouldn't say no. The accesses are there. There is an ' access on Market Blvd. and there's also one on West 79th Street so there are two. Councilwoman Dimler: Right. I guess the one on Market Blvd., my comment on that is that I read the staff report that said something about we could try it this way for 2 years and if there aren't too many accidents we'll review it. I don't like to plan for accidents. I think we should do it right the first time and whatever way that is. Just that little option there didn't set right with me. • Charles Folch: When Strgar took a look at, after staff had requested Strgar to ' evaluate the possibility of constructing a left turn land there, basically to take a look at the undeveloped parcels. What they're zoned for. What the potential retail development is and they try and make projections as to what the traffic volumes are going to be and such. There's always a chance that their estimation of traffic volumes may be high. They could be low. I mean we're working with a lot of unknowns based on what happens with development. It was staff's thought in considering this and in considering, the formulas that are used to predict traffic generations that maybe it would be an acceptable compromise to, since we didn't have concrete evidence that no, this should not 11 be allowed, that maybe it would be prudent to at least allow the situation to occur on a basis which we would evaluate the situation and if we determined or if it's found that it is a problem, it could be typically depicted by having 2 or more accidents there in a given timespan of a year. That maybe we should ' 36 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 close off that access. But at this oint in time we don't have any traffic P Y numbers or criteria that say no, that that shouldn't be there. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, well I guess my comment to that would be that we know the bank will stay there. At least hopefully. We know that there's going to be more development and we should plan right now for optimum traffic. Paul Krauss: One question. When we asked Strgar to take a look at this, they did it on full development of the downtown. But full development can change. . I mean if we have several funiture stores downtown it generates x level of traffic. If we have a Target and a K -Mart downtown, it's something else again. So they tried to give us the worst case scenario and under the worse case scenario, this appeared to be safe and there appeared to be sufficient opportunity to make that turn. But as Charles said, I mean we initially had some concerns about the thing. That's why we asked Strgar to look at it in the first place and we're comfortable with 'what they're telling us is the best information we have and that this is a reasonable thing to do but again there's a lot of, downtown's changing and we're working with the best information we can but it's always tough to know within perfect certainty that it's going to work all along so we wanted to throw that in there just in case a problem did develop. We don't expect it to happen but just in case. Councilwoman Dimler: Now if changes needed to be made in the future, who would pay for that? Has that been stipulated? Paul Krauss: No it hasn't. It would, if a change was to be made in the future, what would have to happen is I suppose the nose of that curb, of the island would have to be extended out past there. It's not a tremendous expense but we could probably clarify that. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you. I guess at this point that's all I have. ' Mayor Chmiel: The item that caught my eye Paul was on the roofing materials. Certainly the type quality .shake would certainly enhance the building as I look at it. Is this Timberline or similar quality shingle, I've seen some of these asphalt fake shingles and that's what they look like. Is there a reason we don't want to go with a higher quality roofing, more natural roofing? Or can I just assume that this Timberline, you're happy with that it's going to give some appearance? Paul Krauss: I think if we had our druthers you might get shake but we went ' through this when the hotel came through. They had originally proposed shake and then realized that (a), they couldn't afford it. (b), they couldn't meet - fire regulations with it because I don't think they were able to get a treated roof system. So we went then with the Timberline stuff which we've seen elsewhere and it's certainly not a shake shingle but it looks a lot better than the other one. ' Mayor Chmiel: I have to agree with that. That was something that we discussed fairly extensively. ' Councilman Wing: The only other comment was on landscaping. We're now the tree city and we're coming up with all this information on how important trees are 37 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 1 and how they shake and they cool and parking lot standards and one we're looking ' at a seminar coming up requires 50% shading on all parking lots just for heat reduction. I guess I'd like to encourage and I wish you could do more so here. Less of the small juleps and junifer and the ornamental trees. We're kind of coming out of what I call the drab prairie appearance of Chanhassen. Everytime the University comes out and shoots the city for a picture that's attractive, they shoot into the trees. If pick up the church, they shoot into the trees and they keep picking up our treeline as our natural amenities. This bank is kind ' of coming in one of the maybe we call it the prairie settings that don't have any trees and I guess I'd like to see us encourage less ornamentals and higher shade trees to meet some of the aesthetics that I'd like to see the city start ' adopting and also get into the cooling and reduction of these heat islands that we've got so I think that taller shade trees, I'd like -to see encouraged. And the small ornamental shade trees discouraged a little bit more. So I don't tend to change or make a comment here other than to say I would have liked to have seen more height to the trees. Paul Krauss: He and I were just nodding to each other. I think we can work with the architect and developer to add those or subsitute. Councilman Wing: I think it would really enhance the property now and in the future and also it doesn't hide the building as much as these smaller trees. It 11 starts to grow. It seems to leave the building a little more open. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Tom. 1 x Councilman Workman: Good point. The number of employees, 6. Is that intended for long range? Randy Schultz: Oh no. That's just a day one. Councilman Workman: Pardon me. Randy Schultz: That's just a day one. I Councilman Workman: Day one? Randy Schultz: I would hope that that would be much higher very soon. ' Mayor Chmiel: They have a lot of customers that's going to -necessitate additional help and I'm sure that's what Randy's probably looking at. Randy Schultz: We're just talking about what might be the actual permanence, the hired staff here perhaps on the very first day and that may change. That may be a little higher. I'll probably have some people up from our other offices here the first several weeks also. Councilman Workman: I don't have a whole lot of concerns or questions. Ursula the comment you brought up, I think we'd better fix that now. I don't know that we have a problem there but I'm trying to imagine the letter that we'd write. Dear Americana Bank. We're going to close your westerly entrance... Love, Ursula. Or something of that in there. So I think it'd better get fixed right 1 here and now or else, I don't think there's going to be a whole lot north of the 38 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 track there for action and you're going to be able to see it coming from wherever so I don't have a problem with it. ' Mayor Chmiel: Michael. • Councilman Mason: My only comment's more of a general one. It looks really ' nice. I was reading through the Planning Commission notes and Commissioner Farmakes was talking about the whole flavor of the city and how maybe we need to look at how much our building's are starting to look alike. I have no quibble at all with this. It's far too late in the game even if I did but I think maybe in the future that is something we should be looking at. And then we start getting into some other things like Tom and I were just talking about. Well ' then you get the real drastic differences so just something to think about but no, I think this looks great. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If hearing none. , Councilwoman Dimler: Just a minute. On the page 12 of the staff report. I just had a question under the subdivision dealing with the second, 2(b). Are we ' still calling this Crossroads Plaza? Because when I read that I thought you were talking about the old. Sharmin Al -Jaff: This one is Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition. The first one. , Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so the name remains the same. Yod're not talking about Crossroads Bank here? Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'd like to get a motion to cover the three items. That being the site plan review for 11,468 square feet, two story bank and office building. Councilman Workman: So moved. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dimler: Second with a clarification of the point that I brought up ' and Tom agreed that we should settle that here. Anybody else want to discuss that? Do you have any concerns Richard or? Mayor Chmiel: Regarding Market. 111 Councilwoman Dimler: The access proposal. - Councilman Wing: I have to trust staff on that I guess but to have it worded after so many accidents. It's sort of making an assumption here and I guess that's really. , Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Normally most banks would have two ways of in and out. I guess I don't object to the access out on Market Blvd.. The only thing that I would try to seeds if that's going to be a left hand turn, that they have arrows marking or signs marking indicating where they should be to either make a right turn or a left turn. That should be the... • 39 ,City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 Randy Schultz: If I could make one comment about that. Let me assure the Council that the last thing the Ameripana Bank wants to have is a situation where we have a bunch of customers that are driving out of our lot and getting in accidents. I can assure you this is very important for us to be able to have our customers be able to turn and go down Market Street. We think it's vital ' for us from a standpoint of having the facility that's accessible to cut potential customers as their other choice. But the last thing we're going to be willing to tolerate or be willing to put up with is a situation where customers are in any danger whatsoever with our facility. So I can assure you that if any problem like that develops, we will be taking action long before the city would have talked to us about taking action. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, and it's not my intention to limit your accesses so I would propose that we remove condition 14 on page 12 there entirely and if and when a situation does develop that is hazardous, handle it through the public safety department. .Councilman Workman: I amend my motion to remove 14. Mayor Chmiel: And will you accept that as your friendly amendment. Councilwoman Dimier: Thank you. • Councilman Workman: Are we approving a, b and c here Don? • Mayor Chmiel: No, we're just taking item a. II Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve Site Plan X92 -1 as shown on the site plan dated February 27, 1992, subject to the 1 following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Stop signs shall be installed at both exit points located on Market Boulevard and West 79th Street, 2. Landscaping along the north edge of the site must be modified to meet all requirements of the railroad. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. Provide a plant schedule indicating the size and type of all plant materials for staff approval. 3. The applicant shall provide the city with the necessary financial securities to guarantee installation of the required public improvements and costs associated with the traffic study. ' 4. Revise architectural plans as follows: a. Incorporate the use of Timberline or similar quality shingles that provide an image of a cedar shake roof. b. Provide details of building exterior treatment for staff approval. 1 40 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 • 1 5. A grading and drainage plan, including storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event prepared by a professional engineer be submitted to the ' City Engineer for review and approval. 6. The applicant shall indicate on the site plan utilities coming into the building and addition and fire hydrants in the vicinity. 7. The applicant shall include construction of the driveway aprons, any median improvements, sidewalk and boulevard restoration in the site improvements. All boulevard restoration, sidewalk, driveways, and median improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates (1992). Detailed plans and specifications shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted for approval by the City Engineer. 8. The appplicant shall be responsible for all damage to the City's existing ' public improvements (i.e. streets, sidewalks, utilities). 9. The applicant shall provide a turnaround area at the east side of the 1 proposed building. 10. The northerly 16 parking stalls shall be labeled "Employee and Tenant Parking Only ". 11. The width of the easterly curb cut off of Market Boulevard shall not exceed 26 feet. • 12. Plans for the plaza shall be submitted to city staff for approval. 13. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed along West 79th Street and _ Market Boulevard. 14. Deleted. L 15. The applicant shall utilize the existing Market Bouelvard access and provide a striping and signing plan for a left turn lane on southbound , Market Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. , Mayor Chmiel: The next item is the final plat approval. Item b. Can I have a motion? Councilman Workman: So moved. • Councilwoman Dimler: Second. , Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? • r 41 .City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the subdivision proposal with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid at time of building permits are requested. 2. Provide the following easements: a. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of all lots. b. The final plat for Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition must be submitted to staff for approval and filed with Carver County. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: Item C. Public Hearing vacating the underlying plat and easements of Crossroads Plaza Addition. Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval of item (c). 6(c). Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Resolution #92 -34: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the vacation of the following easements: 1. The easterly 5 feet of Lot 1, and the westerly 5 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza Addition. 2. The cross access easement located along the common lot line of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: That completes that. Councilman Workman: Did we ever close the public hearing? 11 Councilwoman Dimler: No. Mayor Chmiel: No I didn't. Would someone make a motion to close the public hearing. Councilwoman Dimler: I move we close the public hearing. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. 1 42 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor andithe motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Paul Krauss: Could we get you to act on one more thing? Could you withdraw the original site plan approval for Crossroads Bank just so we can clear the file. Councilman Mason: I'll move it. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to withdraw approval of Site Plan #89 -6 for the Crossroads National Bank building concurrently with the approval of Site Plan S92 -1 for Americana Bank. The applicant should file the notice of withdrawal against the property at Carver County. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 • PUBLIC HEARING: MODIFICATION OF PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 2; MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2 -1; AND ADOPTING A NEW PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2 -2. Councilman Workman: I'd move approval unless there are. Mayor Chmiel: There might be some. Councilman Workman: Okay. So I'll still move approval if somebody wants to second it for discussion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? 1 Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion. Anyone with 1 discussion? Hearing none I'll call a question. Oh, call that back. We're going to close the public hearing. Councilman Mason: Oh, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. 1 Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Now, I have a motion to adopt the new plan for tax increment financing District No. 2 -2. With the modifications to the plan. Can I have a , motion? Councilwoman Dimler: Could I ask a question? Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. 1 43 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. This is already within a district and now we're Y ow we re modifying certain parcels within thatadistrict. What are the exact implications II here that we're talking about? How does this change the circumstances of this site that isn't already in there because they're part of a district already? II Todd Gerhardt: I have a map that better describes it. What you're doing tonight is, you already have an existing district called 2 -1 and what you're doing is you're modifying that district to say that you're going to use tax I increment dollars to potentially a buy a middle school somewhere down the line. You'll make another modification when you designate a site for that and you'll know exactly the dollars that you'll be spending on that site. So that will be a future modification. So right now you're saying that you're going to spend II tax increment dollars in the future to buy a middle school and also you can use tax increment dollars to pay for upgrading of Audubon Road and the cost . associated with that. Some of those costs, they're talking about a traffic II signal sometime down the line on TH 5. You've already done some work on Audubon that wasn't included in your past economic development district plan. The second thing that you're doing tonight is that you are expanding or creating a II new district called 2 -2 highlighted in the red. You are expanding your special assessment reduction program to provide incentives to what is the Chanhassen Business Center that Ryan brought through here approximately 2 months ago so it's the same program, the 3 years worth-of taxes to help write down specials in il land. Councilwoman Dimler: And we're saying then that we're limiting t'he school site II A to 2 -1? Todd Gerhardt: Those monies from 2 -1 would be used to acquire the school site. II Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and it has to be in that district then? i Todd Gerhardt: It's the increment dollars created from the blue, the taxes I created from the blue district would be solely used to buy a middle school property. I Councilman Wing: Even if it was to the west? Todd Gerhardt: Anywhere within that dark black line. 1 Councilman Wing: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: That's where you'd have to buy a school. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, okay. It doesn't have to be in the blue area? Todd Gerhardt: No. II Mayor Chmiel: Todd, I just have one question. I guess I don't have it, maybe you have it, modified development program for development district no 2. In II here it indicates that attached to this modification is exhibit A. A map. I didn't have it in my packet. II Todd Gerhardt: You didn't have a map like this? . 44 - II 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: No. Todd Gerhardt: Okay. What this map does is highlights. 1 Mayor Chmiel: You're right. I've got it here. It's way in the front. Here it is. As Attachment 1 and it isn't entitled as Exhibit A. ' Todd Gerhardt: My mistake. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And that should be Exhibit A? , Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Also you'll notice that you got a park acquisition in there. Chanhassen Business Park and you're going to have to acquire some land to put that lift station on so you could use tax increment dollars to provide that money. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you. Any other discussion? Hearing none, call a question. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Resolution #92 -35(A) adopting the modification of the program for Development District No. 2, Modification of Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 -2; and approve Resolution #92 -35(B) for the creation of a new plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 -2. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: MODIFICATION NO. 11 OF THE REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT , FINANCING PLAN. Public Present: Name Address . Fritz Coulter 7616 Frontier Trail Todd Gerhardt: What you have in front of you tonight is a modification to the redevelopment district in the downtown. Both the Planning Commission and the HRA have approved this plan with the 9 items listed here as the modification to that plan. You should also note on the map, this map here, that we're expanding the project area boundaries to use increment dollars to buy right -of -way and pay for public improvements to the new access to Lake Ann. The road that would go along the southerly part of the Eckankar property. Mayor Chmiel: On the north side of TH 5? Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Can you see that on the map? Also included in that modification is that the HRA is looking at and is still taking citizen comments on the central park acquisition and sometime in the future they want to build a senior housing project and construction of a public library on the Pony /Pauly/ Pryzmus site. And with that you would expand the Heritage Park design. Acquisition of the Hanus building along TH 5.. HRA has authorized staff to enter into a purchase agreement with that development. Construction of a senior center that I think it's your next meeting you will be awarding bids on. 1 45 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 1 Mayor Chmiel: When did we acquire some of those properties that you just got 1 through mentioning? And how does this affect the tax increment financing district? We're not extending that period of time. It's still all still contained within the time that was allocated, whether it be a 5 or 8 or 10 year 1 period. Todd Gerhardt: This is a redevelopment district. It goes out to the Year 2003. So you've got potentially that time period unless, you know we've been talking 1 about maybe closing the district out early and it's continually brought up during our goals sessions and it will be of no effect. Construction on West 78th Street detachment. That project had not been included as a part of a 1 special assessment reduction program. You also include project numbers that qualify for that program. That hasn't been included. TH 5 entry monument improvements. Those are your signs in front of the Holiday and at the, just to the south of the bank that you saw tonight that the HRA has reviewed and will 1 present to City Council when you have further drawings or plans and specs for those improvements. And someday the depot relocation and restoration, as soon as we find a home for it. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Todd Gerhardt: If there's any other questions regarding any of these. I think 1 there may be some people from the audience that may want to comment on this if you will answer any of their questions. II Mayor Chmiel: Good. We'll do that. As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. If anyone has any concerns or questions regarding the particular project, come forward and please indicate your name and your address. II Fritz Coulter: Good evening. My name is Fritz Coulter and my address is 7616 Frontier Trail in Chanhassen. I just want to go on record as being one individual amongst many in my particular neighborhood who are against the II central park and spending about a million and a half dollars on a piece of property to plant trees on. I'm not against trees and if any of you walk past by house you can verify that. I have more trees per square foot than any other 1 lot in this town. I just feel that that property over there can be better used for something than to put a park there. Chanhassen is blessed with an abundance of parkland and I'm including things such as the Arboretum, Minnewashta Park, as 1 well as Lake Ann, Bandimere Heights, all the residential parks. Put this in over here serves absolutely no purpose. Absolutely none. I can see no reason at all why we need to spend a million and a half dollars, that's the quote that I was seeing in the paper anyway. Up to a million and a half and that's what it would end up to be, for something like that. Take that million and a half, go down and develop Bandimere Heights Park. Add things to Lake Ann that you want to add. Do those things. The things that are going to help the people 1 immediately. People are not going to drive up from Lake Riley to sit out here. They want to have a park in their back yard. The property's there. Develop it for them. The same thing with Lake Ann. That's where people go to enjoy themselves. You're not going to find an overwhelming number of people coming to 1 sit up here and do this. If they're going to go someplace, they want to see something of that nature, they're going to go out to the Arboretum. Two miles west of here, that's it. They're going to hit that place. I guess I'm a little II confused on the reasoning as to why the park wants to be there and or why II 46 . 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 there's a need for the park there. I also realize that the HRA is making their recommendation on this and I'm probably too late to do anything against it ( because once things progress to a point like this, it's usually a done deal and we have to live with it. But I do want to express my concern that this kind of money is being spent for something like that when it can be spent a whole heck of a lot better on other park property within the community. I guess that's all I have to say. Mayor Chmiel: I guess maybe one of the points that need clarification. Because it's contained within the TIF district, we can't go outside that TIF district and take that money and put it into other parks. Number one. That park that's existing right now or would be as a park. Mould be taken out of the TIF money. See everything contained within a TIF district you cannot go outside of those boundaries with those dollars to do that. Am I correct? Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. ' Mayor Chmiel: So consequently it could be done. The only other thing that we talked about at the HRA is that we thought it would add a little bit more something to the downtown by having the park in and adjacent, a place for community gathering for the different functions that we have going on during the year. Coulter Drive that's existing right now would be relocated from where it is to the back side and that would still be carried through with that same name. So the street won't be completely eliminated. Just for your. Fritz Coulter: That's of no concern to me. I know you've got letters from my mother and other members of my family. That's no concern to me about Coulter Drive. Mayor Chmiel: No, but it is to me and I wanted you to know that that's still going to be the road be it in front or in the back. But the public hearing is still open on this particular property that we're looking at. We don't have any idea as yet what the total dollars are even though an estimate was there. So that's really hard to sayand we don't know that until we get a price quote and that quote has not been given. Fritz Coulter: Okay. Like I say, basically I'm just going based on what I saw in the paper and also having worked for the government and doing bids for the - government, I know it's going to be that much. That's a fact of life. No bid comes in on schedule or priced. It's always over so I mean if you're guessing it's going to be $900,000.00 to $1.4 million, it's going to be more. Don Ashworth: A couple of points. Number one, the approval of a concept plan , for this area to be a park like setting is just that. In other words you cannot move the library onto what is the Pauly /Pony /Pryzmus site until at least mid -1994 with the earlier construction being 1994 -95. You cannot enhance this area then, lower area as for senior citizens until that point in time. The road really can't come out until that point in time. So a number of these items, cost elements will be 3 -4 years from today. Maybe 5. The other part that was discussed by the HRA was; in driving through Chaska a lot of times that park area downtown isn't just always being.used but it's part of the downtown. It's just part of the imagery and it's part of what makes Chaska what it is. And the ability to do something like that with this piece of property, recognizing that • 47 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 Market Square is going in across the street. The remainder of the development 11 is going to go to the west says that the center of this town is right here. And to think about it again like a 3 story Days Inn as it might be plunked onto this vacant parcel over here, basically eliminates where is downtown. On the other • side of the coin, you've got institutional uses here right now. City Hall, the Bank, the Post Office, the Fire Station, the school. Why not enhance the imagery of that. If you turn this green from here to 78th Street, it looks as though it's one piece of ground. It looks like many of the small town America's that have a courtyard. A park. Or a courthouse in the center of their downtown kind of anchoring it and I think those were some of the things that the HRA was trying to get at. Not necessarily, it will be a focal point for activities as businesses get going and I honestly think that the businesses will come across the street and will sell their hot dogs and you'll have the band there and ,people will enjoy and I think they will drive from the Bandimere area and they will come up here and they will have a hot dog and a piece of pizza. But you know I think it was the sum total of all of those things, not just a park. Fritz Coulter: To me the sum total still doesn't add up to what you want to do. It's just, trying to draw comparisons between Chaska's park which started out as a park and city was basically built around it, and now Chanhassen having a city and trying to a park in the middle of it are two different things. Chaska's is right there on TH 41. you go past it because you're on TH 41. Here the only way you're going to get to it is coming down 78th Street. I dare anybody to try to get on 78th Street this summer. Ursula was concerned about accidents. I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of them down at the intersection of TH 101 where the Dinner Theatre is because of all the dumping of traffic onto that because of all the construction going on in town. It's not a focal point. They're not going to drive past it. They're going to drive past 1 11 on TH 5 and never see it. I realize what you're trying to do but Chanhassen is not a small town. It was when I was growing up. 4 years ago it was a small town but it's not anymore and trying to keep that atmosphere just isn't going to work. It's like trying to say Eden Prairie has a downtown. It doesn't. And you've got the same thing. You can draw comparisons between what is downtown Chanhassen and CR 4 and TH 5 in Eden Prairie. It's almost exactly the same. You've got a SuperA.merica, we've got a Holiday. They've got a bank, we've got a bank. They've got a Burger King, we've got a McDonald's. That's downtown. That's what it is. It's strip malls. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but hopefully that's not what we're trying to strive to have. II Fritz Coulter: I know it's not what you're trying to strive for but that's what it is. Mayor Chmiel: You may see the difference and that's the differences of opinion II from what you have and we respect that but we may have another thought behind it. To see something else within the community as to what we're really looking for to achieve for the downtown and I think we're going in the right direction I as far as the City Council is concerned. We're looking to get that kind of aesthetics within that downtown to make it a little bit different than Eden Prairie. • 1 48 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 • Fritz Coulter: I wish ou luck. I y just wish you wouldn't spend the tax money on it. And that's what it is. I know it's tax increment financing but it doesn't make any difference which pocket you take it out of for me. It's still 1 tax money and I can think of better ways to spend it than on that. Don Ashworth: I would disagree with that as well from the standpoint. You may be taking it out of different pockets but I sincerely believe that it would never go into your other pocket. It would go to Minneapolis. It would go to St. Paul. It would go to the State Capitol but it would not go directly to your pocket. 1 Fritz Coulter: Oh I realize it's not going to go back into my pocket. Once you take it out of my pocket, it never goes back in. I'm not that naive. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Unless there's a hole in it right? Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, we'll close the public hearing. Can I have a motion? 1 Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want me to start? ' Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead. Councilwoman Dimler: When I looked at this and I.looked at the proposals here and most of them I have a feeling for that I want. Some I question but I guess just in comment to Mr. Coulter's concerns I too, I have a problem with HRA money in particular because we kind of think of it as funny money. I know that there's a thousand other projects that we would rather see done but they just don't happen to be within the districts and we can't create new districts. And so it leaves me frustrated as well to know that this money is there and it's - going to be spent and it may be something that we think is a frivolous project when we could be doing other things with it but the fact is that it's here and we do have to make these tough decisions on what to do with that type of money. I guess I will go ahead and approve of all this even though some of the projects I do question, especially the depot since we don't have a location for it yet. And you know, some of those things and I understand the citizens' concerns on this and they're saying why are we spending so much money on these seemingly frivolous projects. But just also, when he brought up the Eden Prairie. I guess I have a feeling for then that now Eden Prairie does wish that they did have a downtown area. They are so sorry that they didn't plan for it so in that respect I hope that we don't make that same mistake and I would approve of the modification. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'd just like to interject just a little bit more to that. I've had a lot of people who have come to Chanhassen and see what we have now in comparison to what we had before and have made a lot'of very positive comments to me. My recently from one of my bosses who's sister just so happens, not to live in Chanhassen but does live in Minnetonka. She does work for cities not developing either. And she made a comment to him that she was really sort } 49 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 of taken aback by the thought and the considerations that have been given to II this community. And she thought and she goes to cities maybe 2 or 3 a week to do this. She indicated there that it's really sort of nice and he said I just happen to the guy that's the Mayor of that city. He works for me. And I (' II thought that was a good comment and I get those comments all the time. From going out and talking to other people in other cities as I do in my normal job. f Everyone says you're really doing it right and I feel real comfortable with it. Richard. Councilman Wing: I guess I'll just throw a comment out because it's my own opinion. Late at night behind locked doors in the privacy of my home I wear a 1 t -shirt and on the t -shirt it says, I love Bill Morrish. Just so that the record picks this up, Bill Morrish is head of Landscape Design and whatever at the University of Minnesota and Bill took me up on the top of that hill one Saturday morning and looked at the city and he said, whatever you do don't bury City Hall. Protect sight lines. Keep as a center and a focal point and that's what kicked the city center park off and Bill had some very valid points that project decades into the future. So when this was proposed, I said good for I Bill and good for Chanhassen for picking up on it. I see it much more than a park. I see it as an open space in front of City Hall protecting it as a focal point. I think that's important when cities build. II Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I x Don Ashworth: If I may bring up, Councilman Wing brought up Bill Morrish. This morning he dropped off to me, Building a Community Across the Corridor. A case II study integrating urban design, ecology. A new parkway model for Chanhassen, il Minnesota. If I could distribute those. I think we got a lot of good brief press out of that. Councilman Wing: Was that your only comment? Don Ashworth: Well I support your position that Bill should remain as a viable II factor in our next group of planning processes. Councilman Wing: Back before this all started, if I could just interject a II comment Mr. Mayor having to do with this? Mayor Chmiel: No. Okay. II Councilman Wing: When I met with Bill but his people, they handed me a book from someplace in New England where an entire river valley, and the communities that said we're not going to do it the way it used to be. We're going to have a 1 Fridley syndrome and they created an entire new way of developing their land and clustering and so on and so forth. I was so excited about that and I've brought it back and we passed out papers to the Council a year and a half ago or I whatever. This is the same thing that excited me out in New England except it's our city this time. Now those people in New England are looking at this saying, boy is that something. That's really wonderful. This is really exciting to see II our city in a creative posture like this. The other cities around us ought to be drooling as far as I'm concerned. This is really significant. 1 50 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 1 Mayor Chmiel: It's neat. It really is. ( Councilman Wing: Have you seen this Mr. Lappic? The newspaper should see this. Councilman Workman: Again Richard's comments and he talked a lot about this at the work session that we had and there's an awful lot of hours spent on HRA 1 meetings and Council meetings and work sessions and planning commissions and the city is really left with very little or very few tools to do what they want to do with their city. The one tool we have of course is to leave things go and we have plenty of photographs of how the city used to look and maybe it doesn't matter how the city used to look. At least people lived and maybe they didn't care but we do have a downtown and a viable downtown but it was because of some long range planning that used the tool, or one of the very few tools, tax increment, that a city has to do these things. And this list of 9 things, none of them can be done without tax increment financing. I guess the tiger chasing the tail scenario would be without tax increment financing we may not have some of the developments in town that are driving the funding for these things. So if you don't have, if you can't lure the development into the town to get the, encapture the tax increment, you can't do these things. When our fore fathers purchased the land for Lake Ann, they were spending our tax dollars. I'm assuming there's a referendum and the people voted and said yeah, let's buy all the property around Lake Ann. If they hadn't done that, it would be a completely different place. I may not, and some people may have hoped that I didn't live here but it's a nice place to live. It's getting to be an even nicer place despite the growth that we have and so these things, the public library, a central park are places where people can go to get away from it and not have to go too darn far. I don't think we have enough. And I guess I'll respond to Fritz. He mentioned in a letter that Mr. Workman's children want } this park. Well that's something of a stretch there meaning the Mayor's grandkids, Ursula's children, everybody's children, a place for them to go for these things. The 4th of July Celebration is huge in this town. I guess we're going to maybe get some bad weather some time and maybe it won't be but we have all sorts of things going on. We have people with the Chamber and with the 1 businesses in town that are organizing and planning art fairs and musicals and things that Chaska does have that we don't. Or are unable to organize so those are some of the things that I think an awful lot of people who moved out here anyway are interested in and are willing to have us put up. And so I don't like to defend all of them. The acquisition of the Hanus building, I can't think of anything more exciting than that. But it is part of a long range plan for the city that if we didn't have the tool, we would be unable to take care of some problems. We took care of how many leaking gas stations in this town and replaced them with video stores and places where people can shop you know. And so I don't know Todd, you're going to have to once in a while get the slide - projector out and show us what it all looked like. I don't know, I guess you can take one thing like the park and pull it out and say not a good idea but it's a part of a whole plan I think that commissions and councils and housing and redevelopment authorities have looked at and have all looked at and I think pretty much agree. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. 1 Councilman Mason: I think it's all been pretty much said. 1 51 1 1 'City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Workman: I approve Modification No. 11 of the redevelopment tax increment financing. Councilman Mason: I'll second it. Resolution #92 -36: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt Modification No. 11 of the Redevelopment Plan and TIF Plan for the Chanhassen Redevelopment Project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. AWARD OF BIDS: LAKE ANN PARK RECREATION SHELTER. Todd Hoffman: Mayor Chmiel and City Council members. As you are aware, the City Council rejected all bids for the project received in the first bid openings on January 13th of this year. You then approved minor modifications and authorized re- advertisement for bids for the project. On the morning of Thursday, February 27, 1992 12 bids that were received were opened. The low bid was from R.L.M. Builders of Waseca, Minnesota in the amount of $255,963.00. As expressed in the report, this price is an extremely competitive price and could not be lowered unless major structural changes were made to the shelter. The cost is higher than the original target amount, however I do not believe it is in our interest to further alter the design or function of this shelter in the interest of shaving costs. The shelter will provide valuable service to thousands of park users each year for many years to come. Funds are currently II r available to complete this project and this investment will quietly improve the quality of life of all residents for many years into the future. Whether it be a birthday party, a company picnic, a cold drink, the rental of a canoe, better lifeguard capabilities, the availability of a public phone or last but not least regular indoor bathrooms, this shelter will mean something to everyone. It is therefore recommended that the City Council award the Lake Ann Park picnic/ recreation shelter construction contract to A.L.M. Builders in the amount of 1 $255,963.00 with no alternatives being accepted. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Todd Hoffman: I should note this evening that we have Max Daubenberger with Van Doren- Hazard- Stallings here. He is our project representative. Scott Harri who - 1 you all know is also in the audience. He has recently, in good standings, left the employ of Van Doren but did work with this project throughout it's conceptual phase. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Councilman Mason: I'd like to move approval. Councilman Workman: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded with discussion. Councilman Wing: I would really like, for myself, my own opinion to have expenditures this big go to a referendum. I think we've decided it's best for the city, as we discussed these other items. The only thing that tempered that 1 52 11 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 is I've been stunned by these numbers until I saw the numbers for redecorating the room downstairs. Suddenly these are awful small numbers. Now I'm worried about the numbers for the room downstairs. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you're right. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: Just to comment on that. This is money that's already dedicated to the park fund so. Councilman Workman: It has to go to the park. , Councilman Mason: Right. It has to go to the park. Councilwoman Dimler: We're really late in the game here to make any changes. 11 Councilman Mason: And I can't wait to use the facility. Or the bathrooms for my kids. Mayor Chmiel: He can use the ones at home. Councilman Mason: Not the little one. He can't wait that long. Resolution #92 -37: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to award the Lake Ann Park picnic/ recreation shelter construction contract to R.L.M. Builders in the amount of $255,963.00 with no alternatives being accepted. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Chmiel: One more thing under Council Presentations. I reoeived a letter 1 with a bunch of renderings that were done by the Chaska Middle School. It comes from two of the Middle School Art Department teachers, R. Gabriel and M.J. Moses. It's basically in celebration of the Youth Art Month of March and they are presenting to the Council original linoleum prints. These prints were made by the Middle School students from our community. And they're really proud of the work that these students have done and take pride in sharing their work with us. So with that we have each received one and I took the one that I liked the most and I'd like to pass, listen they're all great. They're all beautiful, believe me and I'd like to give one to each of the Council. You only get one. And there's only one name that I can't read on it but the one I have is from Lindsey Johnesh. Councilwoman Dimler: And I've got one from Joshua Polson. ' Mayor Chmiel: Which one do you have Richard? Councilman Wing: Let's see, Sheila Ytzen. , Councilman Mason: I have the one from Jill Schwartz. Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, before we adjourn. Could I draw attention to this announcement that was on our desk? 1 53 1 1 City Council Meeting - March 9, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Carver County Prevention Network has put together a film called the Shame of it All. It's a 35 -40 minute presentation. It's not a ' film, I'm sorry. It's a play, dealing with struggles in our lives from dysfunctional families. We all consider ourselves quite normal but the truth of the matter is that we all come from a little bit of dysfunction. And this play is designed to help you get in touch with your own dysfunctions and to know that I that's not a bad social stigma. And also it would help us to prevent dysfunctions in our present families and hopefully future generations won't have to, so it's on Thursday, March 12th at the Waconia High School, 7 :30 p.m.. This is a special preview presentation and any community can later have them come and put it on for a fee. But this is a free presentation. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Available for $250.00. 1 Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, due to the hour, I wanted to bring up the Section 627(b) City Council through possible reconsideration. Would you like to just 11 carry that over to the next meeting? Mayor Chmiel: Let's put it on for the next meeting. Councilman Wing: On Council Presentations? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilwoman Dimler: What is that dealing with Richard? Mayor Chmiel: March 23rd. ' Councilman Wing: Okay. And one comment I would just like to make before g Y just o e we ' leave -and perhaps this would go on the next agenda also. We opened up the MUSA .line and I'm wondering why and when we opened it were we prepared for it? People have tonight addressed the TH 5 corridor. There's a lot going on and I guess I'm feeling relatively strong that the rumors of this study should be no ' longer rumors. I think we have to formally get going on it. I think we're behind. I think we need a task force and I think we need to be up front, follow through and I think we need some momentum and I would like to ask that we make a 1 formal task force to help monitor, keep the momentum up on this issue. Don Ashworth: How about putting that item for the 23rd as well. We're also talking about that on the 19th. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we can discuss that for the next one. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:07 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager 1 Prepared by Nann Opheim 54 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION :° ? REGULAR MEETING tti MARCH 4, 1992 F Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m�... MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT] Matt Ledvina STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kate Aanenson, Planner II and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.99 ACRES INTO 1 SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND TWO OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, EUGENE QUINN. Public Present: Name Address Gene & Therese Quinn 532 Lyman Blvd. Russell & Orletta Frederick 540 Lyman Blvd. Dixon & Diane Blosberg 530 Lyman Blvd. Diane Riegert 520 Lyman Blvd. Mary Lou Jansen 500 Lyman Blvd. Scott Harri Eden Prairie Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plairis Blvd. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Scott Harri: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Scott Harri. I'm representing the Quinn's, the applicant in this matter before you this evening. And I'd like to introduce Therese and Gene Quinn, sitting in the second row and also their neighbors in here. The crux of the proposal that you have before you, I think Jo Ann covered most of the pertinent issues but again the main objective of this proposal is to create and divide the property so the Quinn's can sell their single family lot and as a result of that retain a portion of the property which is identified as Outlot A, the parcel adjoining Lyman Blvd. for future development. And since about 10 years ago the Quinn's have been, I don't know if tormented is the correct word but have been confronted with the TH 212 and it's location studies in what's going to be the possible impact on the property. And as a result of the recent actions, it's sitting right in their back yard right now. And in addition to that has been the land use changes to . the parcel to the west from a residential land use for future land use to now mixed development allowing some commercial development which may have an impact on the property values as far as single family and then most recently what 3o Ann mentioned was in October the public hearings concerning improvements, utilities, sewer arid water to Lyman Blvd. to serve the Lake Riley Hills subdivision and the impact of those assessments to the property kind of really changing the whole complexion of this part of town here. In looking at the staff report and some of the most recent trips that the staff made to the site to look at the right -of -way issue, the Planning Commission Meeting 11 'March 4, 1992 - Page 2 • Quinn's feel that conditions 2, 3, and 4 in the staff report are totally agreeable and that part of condition 1 relating to the right -of -way dedication of the change in the 27 feet to the 7 feet on Lyman Blvd. is also acceptable to them. We would however like to pursue a little bit of dialogue regarding the extension of Quinn Road from where we propose it to end and give some reasons why we think that it might be more prudent to look at the development or the actual amount of right -of -way given for I Quinn Road at a time when the property to the east is developed. Right now the roadway and the gravel driveway that serves two houses to the east of Quinn's, sits right on the top of a hill. Any further roadway extension to the north would be down in an approximate 4:1 or 3:1 gradient. Therefore, ' to make that a feasible road connection, a fair amount of earth work and cutting and filling and this sort of thing which would totally change the 'character and the heavily wooded area once you move north of this site so ' there are some physical constraints to the site both on the property to the east, which is identified as the Chadwick parcel and also the Quinn parcel as far as topographic features. And right now what the Quinn's have put in ' place is an easement for roadway purposes. Driveway easement between the Chadwick parcel and their parcel which would allow for a future access to the right -of -way on the Quinn parcel. And then a final right -of -way could be defined at that time which would then only reflect what is needed for a ' future connection going east over there. And it's not that the Quinn's are opposed to the right -of -way issue but it becomes more of a practical matter of the timing and their cooperation I guess would be best served if development plans to the east were more forth coming and then they would be I guess in a position to work with this group and the developers on the other side there. And just as I guess a footnote to this whole issue of the parcel, currently they have, and I'll just talk in very round numbers, 10 acres of property of which .2 of an acre is the right -of -way on Lyman Blvd. as it currently exists. The proposal submitted to you tonight without the conditions or the dedication requested in item number 1 would ' result in the Quinn's either dedicating or end up having to sell to MnDot 4.8 acres of their 10 acre parcel or 48% which by most measures is extremely high and in fact those longer term members on the Commission probably have never seen a subdivision come in that was going to either dedicate or end up giving right -of -way to 48 %. The conditions of item number 1 would add almost another half an acre of requirement to the amount of right -of -way pushing this to almost 54% of the site just consumed by ' right -of -way. So we're looking at hopefully some sympathy toward the Quinn's. Not that they're opposed to the right -of -way issue but to work with them on the timing issue of extending and actually platting right-of- way to the north on Quinn Road. One of the final things that we would like to have entered into the official Minutes here tonight also is that a lot of value of the property is in it's wooded nature out there and right along Lyman Blvd. it's fairly heavily treed with a large stand of mature trees. We would like, and we know that the City is very sensitive toward preserving trees and the reduction of right -of -way requirement from 27 to 7 is really a positive move. We would like that to continue to reflect a ' condition that as many of those existing trees be preserved because that truly does provide I guess a buffer to whatever development takes place in the future on Outlot A on the Quinn parcel. So we are here and available to answer any questions that either you have or that comes from the audience. So with that I'll close my remarks. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 3 Batzli: Before I ask for other public comments, Jo Ann. Have we looked all the slope and whether that would even be a feasible roadway to put it in? Olsen: Right. If you look on the second page of the plans you can see that there is still some area even between where the slope and the trees actually start beyond where they're giving the 60 foot right -of -way. That area is potential for where the curve in the road could exist and until we know exactly where that's going, we really want to have that right -of -way 1 because now is when it can be dedicated. We've explained to the applicant that once that road is determined, that right -of -way that is not necessary we can have vacated. If we do not get that right -of -way at this time, and I the Chadwick property is developed in the future, then it's difficult to obtain that right -of -way. We would have to possibly pay for it or condemn for it so right now it's to the City's benefit to retain as much right -of way as they think is necessary. So yes it is possible still to have the road actually go into beyond where they're providing the right -of -way at this time. Batzli: If we didn't do it at this time, what is the most likely way that II you'd be able to get access to Outlot 8? Would it be over the Chadwick property here somehow? Olsen: Outlot B will be Highway 212. You'll never need access to that. If you can see where the driveway is sketched in, the'dotted line. Batzli: Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to make comments? Can II you give your name and address please? Gene Quinn: My name is Gene Quinn and that's our property there that we're" looking at. When I first looked at selling this parcel of land, okay first of all you've got 4 acres that's I guess legally mapped now for the freeway" so I'm really forced into subdividing this to ever sell it. Because the Highway Department won't buy it right now and who knows what it's worth. And so I have to go through this whole process. You know basically all I want to do is put in about 6 property boundaries. I'm not changing land use. I'm not changing how many people live there. That road has been there for, I don't know, 15 or 20 years at least. Everybody that's around there, it's been there for 15 years. I feel overall it's, why are I we looking at having to even look at that road at this time. You know I'm not looking to subdivide it. At the time that people want to subdivide that land, they can come in and look at the whole picture of it. Batzli: Anything else? Gene Quinn: Especially the piece up to the north of that, I've got an II easement to Chadwick. In fact Dick Chadwick wrote it up himself. He's an attorney and he owns the property up next to it. I guess I don't feel that we really have any justification for taking all that right -of -way up there. I would leave it going up to the property line and maybe up 16 more feet to get to Chadwicks but to take it, that's 200 and some feet. From there up to the freeway line. Batzli: What is your easement with Chadwick's say? 1 I/ Planning Commission Meeting 1 'March 4, 1992 - Page 4 Gene Quinn: Well it's a 60 font by 60 foot easement that would extend just north of where I'm showing the road parcel. Batzli: But that's just to get on Chadwick's? Gene Quinn: Would get onto his property. Right now the road goes from that corner. It goes along east. So there's an existing gravel road there and all that serves them other two houses. Batzli: You don't have an agreement with Chadwick regarding going over his property to get to what is going to be Outlot B? Gene Quinn: No, I don't need it. Krauss: Unless Outlot B is not acquired for 212 for some reason, which is possible. ' Gene Quinn: I'm going to keep an easement straight north up to where the land that the freeway's going to take just so it's not landlocked. And if you stand out there and look at that road, to ever get it down the hill, it makes no sense at all. It makes no economic sense. 1 Batzli: Okay, well thank you. Gene Quinn: Well thank you. I Batzli: Anyone else? ' Al Klingelhutz: Al Klingelhutz. My land abuts Mr. Quinn's. I'm very familiar with the parcel of land. Mr. Quinn said the road was only there for 15 years. The private road or Quinn Road. Gus Grippendrof who lived to be nearly 100 years old lived there for about 50 years. I think was one of the first houses, was the only house on that 40 acres at that time and that's where he laid out the road because it was the most appropriate and ' best place for a road to go into the property. When you look at the map there, just beyond where the road turns, there is a considerable steep slope. I'm sure that those lines on there are 2 foot contours and you count those lines and there must be a drop from the space between the two wider lines just north of the -pink line there of about 18 to 20 feet. And I think that's why Mr. Chadwick feels that's where the road should have to turn because of the future possibility of even fitting a house into that corner lot. If you went down the hill a little further, the house would more than likely sit down in the wetlands. But if he could keep enough land into the slope of a hill for a walkout home, and keep the road approximately where it shows on the line or just a little bit further to the north. It would make it much more feasible for Mr. Chadwick and to extend that 60 feet down to a new highway proposed 12 which really runs down into some pretty low land. In fact you try to walk out there in the spring or right now, you'd be walking in water. Thank you. Batzli: Anyone else like to address the Commission? Al Klingelhutz: Oh, there was one other thing I was going to say. Those trees along Lyman Blvd. have sort of been a beautiful landmark, especially 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 5 in the fall of the year. They're huge oak trees. The first time I can remember when I lived on that land 70 years now, and it'd be almost a shame to destroy any of them for right -of -way. I did talk to the Carver County engineer on this and he said there's a good possibility when they would take a look at it if Lyman Blvd. ever became a county road, which is proposed in the eastern Carver County transportation plan. That they would try to avoid as much of those trees as possible. Plus the fact that two I houses adjacent to Lyman Blvd. just to the east and I think the City here is taking a good hard look at that because they did reduce the amount of right -of -way along there. It would almost bring that right -of -way up to their doorsteps. And just a little further east there's about a 2 1/2 -3 acre wetland which would be encroached upon too. Batzli: Thank you. Anyone else? Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in 9 P 9 favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: It's shown on the plan here as a utility easement. Is there a need for a utility easement aside from the desire to have the street easement? ' Olsen: We're not exactly sure where the utilities will go once they're brought to that site. Erhart: Would you bring it across the freeway? Krauss: Well from what we know on the current feasibility studies, no. There's no utility crossing proposed over there. We didn't sketch that utility easement on in that area. Erhart: It was put in there by the developer? ' Olsen: Right. The utilities would come up from Lyman Blvd.. Krauss: Or come along this new road that may extend. Erhart: You mean that wasn't put in at the same time the 60 foot dotted I line was? Or they put that in afterwards? I don't understand that. Krauss: Commissioner Erhart, what we're saying is we requested a 60 foot right -of -way for what is now Quinn Road. The utility easement extending up to the highway is not something we requested. It was on a survey. Erhart: Oh, somebody just put that on there? 1 Olsen: So we're requesting that that also be. Erhart: Alright. Then I guess for one thing, I guess tradition has it, if ' you feel you have, well I'll just say I guess it would seem to me that going beyond what would be needed to curve the street there to the east would be unnecessary, particularly if we don't feel that there's ever a utility easement needed to go up to the freeway. If we did feel there's a utility easement, it would be certainly less than 60 feet wide so I guess 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 'March 4, 1992 - Page 6 would have to, in this rare case agree with the developer that going beyond ' some point where you would start to curve to the east and then add what it would take to complete the curve would be as much as you'd need. Olsen: We might not necessarily need it all the way up to Outlot B but you do need it beyond what they're giving. ' Erhart: Beyond because I'm not sure where that it but it has to be enough so you can make a nice curve to the east. I don't know exactly what that is. I kind of scratched something in here but the other thing is, where the current driveway goes over the Blosberg property, does that mean, I ' assume that there's no easement to start the curve further south or is there? ' Krauss: No. Erhart: No. So we really have to start the curve at that intersection of ' property line I'm assuming. Then I guess my recommendation would be that staff figure out how much more space you need to make a safe curve and stop the easement at that point. Other than that, it's pretty simple. ' Batzli: Tim, so you don't, you're not uncomfortable at all that Outlot B may be landlocked even though that's where the freeway's going? If the freeway doesn't go through, we've created something that's landlocked. ' Erhart: One thing, if that would be a concern, then the easement we ought to be requesting ought to be 30 feet, not 60 because tradition has that we take half from both property owners along a line if we consider that someday that we would need a thru street. Is there some doubt about the freeway at this point? After all these years. That's a real question. Oh boy. Let me think about that one. Can anybody respond? Your question is, ' is there some doubt about. Batzli: I don't know. It seems to me that's why the condition is in there ' because it would be vacated if, there'd be no reason to extend it if the freeway goes in. Erhart: Then I misunderstood it. If that's the purpose of asking for 60 . feet, in case the freeway doesn't go in. Batzli: Is that right Jo Ann? Olsen: The main concern we had was to accommodate the road to service, that's going to be servicing Chadwick was the main concern. To accommodate ' that curve. I think we have more confidence that 212 will go through. Batzli: So you just want to accommodate a curve into Chadwick? You think 212 is going to go in, that doesn't matter? Olsen: That was our primary, but it's a good point that Outlot B would be landlocked. I mean that's a good point. Krauss: Well, you can always resolve that and maybe Gene's probably willing to consider taking a private easement over his property so he can 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 7 give himself access to there. y 1 Emmings: Didn't he say he's already done that or he's doing that? Gene Quinn: I'm going to keep an easement to the north. 1 Emmings: How wide? Gene Quinn: How wide? I can keep 60 feet. I would keep that until you know, it would expire when the freeway land is purchased. Emmings: Yeah. Erhart: And we'd put that into the conditions. 1 Emmings: No, that's private. He's doing that for himself. Conrad: I have nothing to add. ' Emmings: Just a comment I guess. If he's going to keep a 60 foot easement to make sure that Outlot B isn't landlocked in case 212 doesn't go through,, it doesn't seem to me to be much of a burden for us to say that that's a, that we want to retain some options there and this is.the time to do it. So I'd concur with the staff report on this with the understanding that once we know that 212 is through and once we figure out how to get into the' Chadwick property, that the rest would be vacated. That seems to me to be, that preserves the most options for the city so that's what I like. The only other thing I'd say is that the northern boundary of Lot 1 would come ' south. Are the plans on the highway final enough so we can say there's no chance that that property line will change to accommodate the highway? Olsen: I just talked to them last week and there has been no changes. 1 They're still working on the EAW so there's always still the potential but that they don't see it changing here. But there's no guarantee that they might acquire more land. 11 Emmings: Okay. I don't have any more. Farmakes: I have no further comments. Ahrens: Just one question for Mr. Quinn. You don't have any objections to , the long right -of -way the City wants north of, or south of the current driveway? That runs along the east side of your property. Gene Quinn: I have 60 feet. ' Ahrens: That driveway that runs along the property. You don't have any objection to that right -of -way I take it? Gene Quinn: You mean this piece? Ahrens: Right. , 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 'March 4, 1992 - Page 8 Gene Quinn: No, I didn't have any objection to here and I'd go up even 60 ' more feet. To me this, if you had to put a road here you could do it the same as the intersection in the city. I mean .I don't want a 30 mph curve. ' Ahrens: I understand the applicant's concern. I think the City should only take as much land as is necessary to make the curve to Mr. Chadwick's property. As long as there's going to be a private easement... 1 Batzli: Does that need to be a condition or do you feel comfortable that that's a private matter between Lot 1 and Outlot 8? Ahrens: I think that he's going to have to do it because he doesn't want to eliminate his options for any development of Outlot 8 if in fact... Batzli: I don't have anything other than I guess what Joan and Steve and Tim's comments. A motion? Erhart: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of ' Oakwood Estates Preliminary Plat #92 -3, dated February 3, 1992 with changes to condition number 1 to read, that the applicant provide 7 feet of right -of -way along Lyman Blvd. and will dedicate a 60 foot wide right -of- 1 way over the existing driveway easement north to a point necessary for establishing a future street which will continue north, turning east at the northwest corner of the Blosberg property. That distance to be, that exact distance to be determined by staff. All the other conditions to remain the same. Conrad: I second that. Batzli: Discussion. ' Conrad: We didn't talk about the trees and the concern for the trees and the 7 feet of right -of -way. Do we need any comments on that? ' Krauss: We really have no idea at this point what the impact, if any will be of the reconstruction of Lyman Blvd.. Only taking 7 feet of right -of- way at this point would tend to limit any intrusion. • ' Ahrens: Are the trees located in that? I don't have any idea if the trees would be located in that area. ' Krauss: I was out there today with Gene. I'm not certain. Olsen: Some will be within there but the road will probably be centered within the right -of -way so what we're doing is really pushing the right-of- way to the south, which is farm field. It seems logical that that's where they'd go. ' Emmings: Any street, the fact that the trees are in the right -of -way doesn't mean they're automatically going to get knocked down I take it. Number 1. Number 2. The City of Chanhassen, what role does the City have if the County should upgrade and widen that road? Krauss: Well the fact of the matter is, it's not a county road. 1 • Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 9 1 Emmings: Oh it's not. What is it? 1 Krauss: It's a city street. It probably should become a county road at some point. Emmings: If it's a city street then we have control over what trees get knocked down. If it's a county road, do we have control? Olsen: We can still comment. Emmings: Okay. I don't see we can impose any conditions on the subdivision that are going to affect those decisions later. Conrad: Basically what that does, this decision has put the right -of -way more to the other side of the road and that would be acceptable. 1 Batzli: I have a comment on item 2 actually. I'd like to propose that we amend that to read, applicant shall enter into a driveway easement agreement satisfactory to the City releasing the City from liability or maintenance responsibilities, etc., etc.. In other words we'd cross off the first words, the City Attorney's office shall prepare and add, the applicant shall enter into a driveway easement agreement satisfactory to the City. Erhart: I so amend. 1 Batzli: Do you agree with that, your second? • Conrad: Oh sure. I so second. 1 Batzli: Any more discussion? Erhart moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Oakwood Estates Preliminary Plat #92 -3 to create one single family lot and two outlots as shown on the plans dated February 3, 1992 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide an additional 7 feet of right -of -way along Lyman Boulevard and shall dedicate a 60 foot wide right -of -way over the existing driveway easement north to a point necessary for establishing a future street which will continue north, turning east at the . northwest corner of the Blosberg property, the exact distance to be determined by staff. 2. The applicant shall enter into a driveway easement agreement satisfactory to the City releasing the City from liability or maintenance responsibilities over' the private driveways until the street (Quinn Road) is constructed to city urban standards. 3. Outlots A and B cannot be replatted or built upon until. sewer and water are available to the site. . 4. The existing gravel drive will have to be upgraded to urban street standards once utilities are available and further lot subdivisions 1 Planning Commission Meeting 'March 4, 1992 - Page 10 ' occur which utilize Quinn Road. All voted in favor except Emmings who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. 1 Batzli: And your reasons for opposing. Emmings: I just go along with the staff report on this PUBLIC HEARING: ' AMENDMENT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE A -1, A -2, AND RR DISTRICTS BY ELIMINATING THE 2.5 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE RURAL AREA. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. ' Aanenson: I did have a few phone calls on...concern was people who already had 2 acre lots, could they split their lots and that's not the intent of this. This is for someone who has 10 acres. I think that's where the ' confusion came in because they thought they could split their lot and if they could still get the two septic sites on it... II - Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Ahrens: I have no comments. Farmakes: No comments on this either. Emmings: I can't understand something that you've written here. Number 3 says that each site must have at least 1 acre of area which can support 2 septic system sites. I suppose there should be a comma there. ' Aanenson: We're thinking one area. Instead of taking one acre, we want to take out the acre and saying one area. ' Emmings: Okay. It's one area which can support two septic system sites, a building pad and a well. ' Aanenson: That's what's existing right now in the rural lot. Emmings: Okay, but the it says with a slope of 25% or less. Does the slope of 25% or less go with the area er does it go with the septic systems? Olsen: It goes with the area. Emmings: Okay, this is real confusing. It needs punctuation real bad. Aanenson: What it is... Emmings: It's what? 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 11 Aanenson: It's just a portion of that section. I should have written out the whole. 1 Emmings: Well but this sentence, I mean you can't make sense of it if you just read it and it's real simple to fix I think. If I know what slope goes with. Ahrens: I think the well is supposed to have the slope. Emmings: Well I thought maybe it was the septic. I thought maybe it was the septic. You had to have your septic sites in areas where you have 25% slope or less. I don't know what that goes with. 1 . Batzli: I think it's the whole area. Ahrens: That's exactly the way it's written. Olsen: We wrote it so it was wrong. The intention was the septic site area. Remember with the Bluff Greens? 1 Emmings: What it should say is each site must have one area which can support two septic system sites on a slope of 25% or less, a building pad, 1 and a well. Olsen: Right. That was the intention. Batzli: Can you put a building up on more than a 25% slope? Emmings: I can. Any engineer can. 1 Olsen: Well they can grade it. You can't grade septic sites but you can grade... I'm just saying the building pad you can grade. The septic site you can't. You can't grade it. Emmings: Yeah. You've got to stay completely off it. Okay. Now if it's written that way, then I understand it and it's fine with me. Krauss: Can we ask for you to respond on one aspect of this? This ordinance totally eliminates a minimum size criteria. Basically the minimum size becomes defacto. Can you accommodate those features on the lot? We also, at the time this came up, in fact Tim will remember this. We discussed having a 1 acre minimum and if the 1 acre qualified for this, that's fine. Otherwise it had to be bigger. Is there any perception as to whether you'd be more comfortable with an acre minimum or without one? I mean we're not sure what the bottom end will be. I mean effectively it's probably going to be bigger than % 15,000 square foot lot. Conrad: It shouldn't be a 10,000 foot lot. Emmings: We're not going to start this again are we? 1 Conrad: But it leaves it open. Right? 1 1 ,Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 12 ' Batzli: I though you were going to come back with an acre. That was going to be my only question was what happened to the acre. Aanenson: I met with the building department and calculated...figured a minimum lot would be somewhere close to 3/4 of an acre... Maybe a half acre but that's getting pretty tight. ' Batzli: But what's the thought process for not putting the minimum in there? ' Emmings: What minimum? A minimum? Batzli: A minimum. ' Krauss: It's a total reliance on a performance standard but I guess you know, and we wrangled with it a little bit. We would not be uncomfortable with establishing a bare minimum and if it's 3/4 of an acre, an acre. 1 Batzli: Tim's our expert in lots here. ' Erhart: Yeah, it's about 3/4 acre. The question then is, is staff comfortable with, if somebody comes in with an unreasonable plan, do you feel you have the authority to say no? ' Krauss: People can be more creative than we can anticipate. The other side of this is we are allowing cluster development here where theoretically you peg a 5 acre outlot that's going to have a drainfield for ' the entire community if it's well designed. In that case you may want to allow down to a 15,000 square foot lot. Maybe the 15,000 square foot should be, I mean perceptively it seems wrong to theoretically allow something smaller than what you allowed in a sewered area. ' Erhart: Well that was, I guess are we open to discussion? 1 Batzli: Yeah. Erhart: That was my question is, are we then, because we haven't dealt ' with items 2, 3, and 4 here which are the setbacks, lot depth and width, which I think we need to, are we then assuming we're adopting the RSF standard which is a 100 foot width to 150? ' Aanenson: No, we're just talking about the lots that...still follow the same setbacks... ' Erhart: You're still going to require a 200 foot wide lot? Why would you do that? Item number 2, under 20 -575. Item number 2 says you have to 200 foot lot width. 200 foot lot depth. 1 assume that that was going to be, I'm assuming we'd look at that also. If you're going to allow a one acre lot, you really need to go. Because it was absent there, I assume you were going to use the RSF standards as you're suggesting, the 15,000 square feet with the 100 foot width. I don't know. I think we have to deal with those at the same time. Conrad: Why don't we use 15,000 square feet? 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 13 Erhart: Yeah, the question is if you're going to allow a community system, then what you're trying to drive towards is to get normal sized lots. So why not use the RSF standards then? Krauss: Well as a consistent factor to establish the bottom end, it seems 1 like it makes some sense to do that. Erhart: Let me ask you. When the guy comes . in with a septic design, doesn't he have to follow some book or something? Krauss: There's the WPC 40 which has been superseded. 1 Erhart: And our ordinance requires them to follow that? They can't come in with some, nobody can come in with some hair brain idea, it has to follow a clearly written standard? Emmings: Isn't this just so remarkably different than what we're dealing with in RSF that it doesn't apply? Here you may have a lot, even if the guy could get it all into a 10,000 square foot let's say, which I don't think you can. I don't think it's possible but let's say somehow they design it in there. He's still got, he's on 10 acres. This one 10,000 square foot lot on 10 acres. Do you care? Batzli: Yeah, actually you do don't you? Emmings: I don't know. Krauss: I think you care because the reason we got into this in the first II place is what happens when the City comes out and grabs these things and how do you integrate it? I mean you can perceptually illustrate if you have 100 acres, a 10 homes on a street that would look like it's a street ' just around the corner from City Hall. And it's sitting on 90 acres of nothing and there's a big outlot someplace out there that has the community system and when the city extends itself out to there, you just knock off that community system and hook it to the sewer. That's the lowest common II denominator. Erhart: That's the whole point of this thing is so that we don't end up with a Timberwood island that's there forever so that you can put in a small little group of lots so that down the road when city sewer comes in, and you're doing this in an area where you think sewer is going to come in. In 30 years or something. That it integrates right in and I would surely think that we'd want to use at a minimum our RSF standards of 15,000 square feet and clearly state that. Emmings: I wouldn't have trouble going along with that I guess. I just 1 don't think it can be done in less than that. Erhart: If you lay it out... 1 Emmings: You might as well put a fire under it. Conrad: Is there any logic when people do this Paul? When they take 40 acres and they can put 1 per 10 on 40. When they start laying their 4 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 'March 4, 1992 - Page 14 houses out, what's the thought process that they're going through? Is there any, are they looking to the future at all or are just really trying to get the 4 houses out? ' Krauss: I think it's pretty clear those pre -'87 plats didn't think about much of anything except to get 2 1/2 acre lots. ' Conrad: Is there any logic to where they put those houses? Krauss: Well I know that in Timberwood, 1 don't know if Al is still here but Al's told me that the lots are all designed so they can be split in half theoretically if sewer and water came through. But realistically you're not going to rezone the odd lot in the middle of Timberwood and run 'a utility system past 13 or 14 angry owners to get to that one lot. ' Conrad: The only thing I'm thinking about is, you know if there was some logic for larger lots, that 1 acre would set a, would create an environment for larger lots in that area. But there's probably, that's probably folly in thinking that it's setting any kind of precedent for how a future developer's going to go in. So realistically I think we should go back to the 15,000 square foot minimum and RSF type standards. They're going to be bigger but. Aanenson: I can change that. I mean...all of the vacant lots that are in ' place right now. Change the minimum standards until we talk about the 15... Erhart: No, they'd have to have 10 acres. Aanenson: ...I'm talking if we change the front yard setback...so I'm not sure what the lots would be. Krauss: Unless it's just lots created after the date the ordinance becomes effective. You know realistically too, 1 don't think in the next 10 years you're going to see more than 3 or 4 subdivisions coming in under this. Erhart: I think that's a good idea to add in there that, the fact that if a lot's created afterwards because you don't want to have a row of houses II at Timberwood that's been set at a 50 foot setback and then all of a sudden one comes in with a 30. It wouldn't be right. Are you done? 11 Conrad: Yeah, I think so. Erhart: On the statement there, right in the middle of the page 2, where it says large lot residential developments. Just as a clarification. If that would read rural residential and then in parenthesis, (unsewered area developments) because we don't use the word large lot I don't think. Krauss: Actually it's in the comp plan. Erhart: It is? Okay. It would seem to me to read a little better. You ' can look at it. Secondly is, over on page 4. Page 3, item (a). Where does that go? 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 15 Aanenson: That's all new language. Erhart: Okay, where does it go in the ordinance? Does it go in the zonin ordinance or does it go in the? Aanenson: Zoning ordinance under, we have a section called rural lot standards... Erhart: Well again, my feeling is one of the worst things that ever 1 happened to Chanhassen was for us to get in a situation where we encouraged the chopping up of farmland into these 2 1/2 acre lots. So if nothing else accomplished in my 5 years here, this is a very good change. I would recommend one more thing, and this is a major thing. That is to encourage further that people don't go out and ever do this again is that we change our street standards for all of Chanhassen now to require urban street standards. Eliminate once and for all rural street sections. All future subdivisions have to have curb and gutter and the purpose is one, I think the city is now ready for that. Essentially we are a growing community I that we expect some day to be pretty much urbanized. Secondly is that it will make it too expensive to go out and create a tract of 2 1/2 and 5 acre lots because the streets get more expensive. I think we ought to do that along with this change and do it simulataneously. I throw that out as an I idea to again encourage people to cluster so these things fit in. • Batzli: Does the rural versus urban, if you will, street standards, do they vary in the amount of easement that they take or anything else? Krauss: Well it used to. Olsen: It's all 60 feet now. Krauss: Yeah, it's all 60 feet now but the standard of pavement and the I lack of curbs and storm sewer are the real difference. Batzli: But if you required that and you got curb and gutter in some of these areas where they don't have sewer or water out there, do they then end up ripping up the streets to put it in? _ Krauss: Well, that's a possibility but they'd rip it up whether it was an II urban standard street or rural standard street. Batzli: But it costs more to put it in. Krauss: They'll move it or run the utilities through an easement area on one side or the other. Erhart: That would have to be planned out when they put the development in hopefully. Your thinking is an urban street is not as wide as, total width of grading is less isn't it than a rural? 1 Krauss: Because you don't have the ditches on the side. Erhart: So you're talking, if you're looking at trying to, most of the ones that are going to go in, if they're going to go in wooded areas or 1 Planning Commission Meeting `March 4, 1992 - Page 16 wetlands, it would seem to me they'd have less, encourage less disturbance. Batzli: Does that change have to be made parcel with what we're doing tonight or is this just something we should consider and look at? Conrad: I guess my preference is not to consider it right now or to consider it as part of this. I'm not sure how it. ' Erhart: It doesn't have to be simultaneous but I'm just saying in conjunction with it somehow, I just think. Batzli: Is that something the rest of the Commission wants staff to take alook at? To basically amend the ordinances so that we're looking at urban street standards throughout all of Chan? Pros /Cons. ' Aanenson: It's the first time I've heard of it. Batzli: I think it's the first all of us except Tim have thought of it I'm not sure. Conrad: I'm not sure where I'm at on it. I don't know. You think it's a high priority. Erhart: Well I don't know. It's an idea. It might be quacky. In fact Al's here. I guess he knows more about subdivisions than anybody here. Maybe he's probably appalled that I'm proposing this because it'd certainly make a development more expensive but I propose it because I think it makes sense for our future. ' Al Klingelhutz: Really though if you're going to cut the lot sizes down from 2 1/2 to 1 acre...because the length of the road would be that much ' longer so if you had twice the length of road to cover the same amount of lots. 5o the difference in cost per lot would not be much different from a rural service road than an urban. ' Erhart: One thing you wouldn't want to have is a bunch of 15,000 acre lots with a rural road. ' Batzli: Exactly. Krauss: I think it's a real valid point to ask the City Engineer to pond to it. I think the whole idea of the rural roads stems from an E) or which wasn't too long ago but where folks anticipated development in the rural area was somewhere over the horizon and nobody knew when. We've just confronted a bunch of situations where it's not over the horizon. It's here. Batzli: What I'd like to do I guess is have staff's engineers come to a ' meeting next couple of sessions that you have. Talk to us a little bit about what that entails and whether it's something that we need to take a look at and modify our ordinances on that. My only comment is, I would prefer that we have a 20,000 or half acre minimum rather than a 15,000 minimum here. I think that at least 2 Council members here may support me that 15,000 is even a small sized lot and encourage it out in these areas 1 .1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 17 1 is I don't think necessarily wise idea so I would prefer, and I may be out I voted here that we look at a 20,000 square foot lot or something rather than 15. Other than that, do I have a motion? Councilman Wing: ...I clarify a question... If we're talking 15,000 square feet and it requires 2 septic system sites, can that even be done on that small of a lot? Krauss: No, but that's where it becomes a performance standard. The only 1 way you could do a 15,000 square foot lot in all likelihood is to have it clustered community drainfield. If you don't do that, your lot size may be 4 acres you know depending on the terrain. 'Councilman Wing: So that's a big unknown at this time. Krauss: Right. It tells the applicant that they've got to give us 1 engineering that demonstrates they can qualify. Emmings: I think the thought is Dick, that someone sometime may be able to come up with a real tiny lot and be able to accomplish this and nobody up here wants to see them go below the minimum we allow in a regular subdivision. That's the only reason for putting that number in. We sure II don't expect to see any. Conrad: What I don't understand is our setback standards. Now if we put all minimum for lot size in, what are we doing? Are we changing all the other setbacks? Kate Aanenson made a comment that wasn't picked up on the tape. 1 Conrad: But they would be different standards in the rural and the A -2 districts. So would we have two sets of standards? 1 Aanenson: If that's the direction you want to go. If we went with the 15... 1 Emmings: I thought what Tim is saying is that, Ladd is that as, the RSF standards will be a minimum. Conrad: But here we're dealing, get me out of, maybe I'm missing some piece of logic here but where we're dealing in an agricultural estate district or an RR district where the setbacks, side yards, whatever, are a II lot bigger typically and now all of a sudden we're going to say across the board we've just shrunk them to RSF standards. What we're trying to accommodate these few situations where we're subdividing 40 acres and giving them 4 lots and so for those 4 lots it may make sense to change, but 1 guess what I'm not confident. I don't want to change the standards for the balance of those areas. Aanenson: ...they're going to have different standards... Erhart: If the lots's under 1 acre you can do that but if it's over 1 acre' it has to be the standards that are now in there? 1 , Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 -- Page 18 ' Aanenson: Fight. Batzli: Would the Commission feel more comfortable taking a look at this at the next meeting with it all put together? Conrad: Yeah. 1 Aanenson: I would. Batzli: Okay, do I have a motion? 1 Emmings: To look at this next time again? Batzli: I think we should bring it back. Emmings: I'll move to table it. Batzli: Is there a second to table? Farmakes: Second. 1 Erhart: That includes looking at the urban versus rural standards? Is that your motion? • 1 Emmings: Are you back to the roads? Erhart: Well, are we coming back just to talk or is that in your mind a 1 separate, totally separate thing? Emmings: I'm only talking about what's in front of us. ' Erhart: Alright. Batzli: I think staff is already going to put together a presentation or take a look at it for us on the road section. Erhart: Okay. 1 Conrad: But just remember from what Tim's suggesting may make some sense but really the people who don't like that are the developers out there or ' the people that are subdividing and maybe they're not ever developers at this time. They're somebody that owns 40 acres and are just trying to, they're going to give us the pitch that they don't have a lot of money to do this. So I don't know if staff, the engineer will represent one side of the coin. Batzli: I don't think we're going to make a decision based on the ' engineer's report other than to figure out what are the changes. I mean they know how much it costs to build roads. We're not looking I don't think to make a decision other than perhaps to hold a public hearing to talk about changing it. I don't see us doing anything more than that. I don't even understand what all the changes would be. 1 Planning Comrr'ssion Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 19 Emmings moved, Farmakes seconded to table the amendment of the Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan and sections of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the A -1, A -2 and RR District for further study. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: Kate, do you have enough direction on where we want to see it go? Okay. As far as direction to Kate on the size of the lots, I'd like 20,000. If everyone can just kind of, what would you like to see Tim? Erhart: I think that's reasonable. Batzli: Ladd? Conrad: Why do you want 20? 1 Batzli: I want it bigger than 15. Emmings: How about big enough so that there's a chance for them to split 1 it if it ever became a 15,000? What if it was 40? Erhart: That's one acre. 1 Emmings: 45. Or if it was 30. Krauss: That really doesn't work in practice. I mean they plop the home right in the middle and there it goes. Batzli: I just think it's rural. The question is whether you want to -, preserve any rural setting and 15 is, you're plopping them in like back here. It's just, I don't get it. Emmings: But once there's water and sewer there, they can do it. Batzli: Yeah, but the question is whether you want to preserve some of the' character of the land. Conrad: But we're preserving the other acres. Not the ones that the houses are going on. Batzli: That's right. Conrad: So I don't care. I can go along with 20. It's not practical anyway to get this on 20,000 feet. Erhart: Well it only would be if you had a community sewer system. But 1 again, I mean I'd go along with 20 to be nice but I'm not sure there's a point. Conrad: If you want to make a power play Mr. Chairman. Batzli: I'm not trying to make a power plan. That's why I'm asking you guys. Steve. 15, 20, different number? Emmings: I don't care. I really don't care. ,Planning Commission Meeti,g ' March 4, 1992 -- Page 20 Farmakes: I would support 20. And 3 trees. Batzli: Joan? And 3 trees. Did you hear that? Ahrens: I don't really see the point between 15 and 20. I'll go with 15. I don't see the point... I Emmings: Well there isn't any. You're not preserving rural character because until water and sewer come, the guy's sitting on 10 acres. After it comes, they can put in a 15,000 square foot subdivision. Batzli: The only time it's going to happen is if they cluster and use some ,sort of community system. ' Ahrens: I'm not sure that 20,000 square foot lots preserve rural character. ' Batzli: No, but it avoids downtown city square gridlock potentially. Or helps. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING PUD RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS. Krauss: I don't know if this qualifies as moving right along. Batzli: 'Okay, let's move right along and screech to a halt. Krauss: As before, we're really not entirely certain where you'd like us to go with this. Although I guess I'm getting a better idea. We tried to give you the information that you requested. We did a survey of a number of third tier communities. It's in your packet. To the extent they defined a PUD lot size, residential PUD lot size, we've given you that information. It goes down to some ordinances which don't establish a minimum lot size for PUD. In fact in Eagan they just said well, the smallest we'll ever accept is 8,700. I think they pulled that out of a ' hat. But in Eden Prairie it's the same, 13,500. They require on normal single family lots. On some cities like Bloomington it went from 11,000 to 15,000 if you're on a corner lot. And on but you can see that none of ' those communities has the 15,000 square foot standard that we have. Now whether that has any bearing on the discussion or not I don't know. But that's the information. Also in your packet, we got a letter from Peter Olin via Ladd where Peter suggests a rather simple approach is a better one for an ordinance. With a strong intent section. I don't disagree with that. I mean we talked about a different approach of not being too specific and just establishing what kind of development you want to achieve. On the other hand, if you're real sensitive to the minimum lot size criteria, that might be one of the standards you want to put in there. I also tried to focus a little bit on what exactly is the issue about lot size. The issue seems to be that you can't get a desireable or a normal home on the lot and I think you can approach that from two perspectives. You can establish a requirement, and I think it should be universal frankly because we have equal problems in normal subdivisions, that there be a minimum buildable area. Well -that you demonstrate that you can fit some sort of normative home, a reasonably sized deck and a back yard and if you can't do it, and you may not be able to do it on a 3 acre lot if it's got 1 r Planning Commission Meeting 1 March 4, 1992 -- Page 21 bad topography or wetlands and it's not a legitimate lot. That standard should apply universally. PUD's, subdivisions, whatever. Emmings: Can I ask you a question right there? What stops a developer from coming in and saying, yeah I can put this house on this lot and I can put a deck on it and I've got a back yard and then he goes out and he builds a house that's a whole lot bigger than that and just kind of destros.' the ability to put a deck on there because of the size of the house. How do you get around that? Krauss: Well I don't know. Then you're in the position of you took the moral high ground. You demonstrated that it could have been done. If somebody somewhere made an independent decision to screw it up, that's what' they did. Emmings: Yeah, then that's their problem. Krauss: The other aspect of it is the buildable area approach. I've worked with ordinances that say that not only do you have a minimum lot size of x but a certain percentage of it has to be buildable. Has to be useable. And to get that you eliminate all the easements that conflict, all the wetlands, the setbacks and if you don't achieve that buildable area, again a 15,000 square foot lot may not be buildable. I mean we've seen some that aren't. Or we've seen 30,000 square foot lots that aren't buildable. I think that if you establish criteria to meet those two guidelines, I don't care if you've got 10,000, 15,000 or 30,000 square foot" lots, it's going to be a reality check. It's going to get you lots that are much more consistently utilizeable without reliance on variances. Batzli: Define utilizable. A deck, is that utilizable? ' Krauss: We actually did in an earlier draft of the ordinance, and I think it was a 60 x 40 house, a 10 x 12 deck and a 30 foot back yard area. ' Emmings: A 60 x 40 house and garage, is that what you're talking about there? Batzli: Now we've got a lot of information from the other communities here ll and clearly the other communities don't seem to be as uptight with minimums as I am and I maybe convinced the Commission to be. The question is, of course as always, where are we going to go from here? My concern was initially from concerns I had, problems in the PUD's that currently existed. My understanding of the intent of the PUD was to be creative and to cluster and to provide open space and I don't know that we got that in the past. I'm not sure that the new ordinance is going to get that. From the sounds of it, there's a new proposal in house that basically provides small clustered homes in a cornfield and then provides larger lots in the II wooded area. Now it seems to me that the intent of the PUD would be to cluster even more tightly either in the cornfield and provide open space in the trees and preserve all of them or'to provide some sort of ballfield or II something else in the cornfield. But I'm not sure why clustering homes in the cornfield, in essence putting them on smaller sized lots than we would require than the rest of the city and then allowing the developer to charge a premium into the trees, meets what we really want to get out of the PUD, 1 .Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 22 other than if we want to save some trees. That's the only thing that I can see that's beneficial to the city and once the developer sells those lots, the people can do whatever they want to the trees so I'm not sure that we've gained anything. What I'd like to see, and my only point in getting on my high horse on this whole thing has been, how can we be proactive so that people are encouraged to use the PUD where we get a creative development and the city wins, the developer wins and the people moving 1 into the development win. That's what I'm asking. I'm asking for creativity. I'm asking what is it that turns developers on that we can give them so that we get an above average development. We save open spaces ' and trees and wetlands and everybody who moves in is happy as well. You know Ladd suggested last time wa11 let's just put in a density and maybe that's what we have to do. Maybe we just leave it wide open. Let them come in. We look at the density. See if we like it and as long as we warn the people moving in that they're in a PUD development. If you don't understand what that means, then check with Paul Krauss. Maybe that's what we do but I don't know that we're being proactive enough to say how are we going to encourage these people. You know the developers, because it seems in the past all we've done is we've given the developer a greater opportunity to charge a premium for some lots and probably not reduce the price on the homes that are on undersized lots. And I use undersized lots euphamistically because they're undersized compared to the rest of our standards. I mean it's not necessarily that they're undersized. They may be useable. They may be utilizeable. They may be fine to put the house on 111 the pad, with the deck, 30 foot back yard but they are undersized compared with our other standards. I don't know. I mean we've heard a lot of people. I know you're frustrated. Probably with me but I don't know that ' this is going to work. I don't know that there is a way to make it work. Krauss: I guess from a staff standpoint, I mean we do from a. professional standpoint feel that these things have utility. But we're not here to 1 twist your arm and keep coming back with something that's not going to fly. I mean we've been working on this one since last spring, and the trees are about to bud out again. I think that from a design standpoint it certainly ' has validity. We're not in the business of manipulating the I mean the only influence we have over a developer is we say, here's our ordinance. You can either develop that way or you can use this more ' creative approach that may make you a little more money but you're going to give us what we're looking for too. I mean that's the only carrot and stick we have in this world. Now Brian talked about a plat, and I ' mentioned that I was going to bring a copy of it to you to look at. I've only got these two blue line prints. I can spread them out up there if you like and you can take a look. 1 Batzli: You guys want to see it? Emmings: Yeah. Batzli: Okay. (Paul Krauss presented and explained the subdivision and PUD plan to the Planning Commission at this point.) 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 -- page 23 1 Erhart: And what did we get? You say you think we can get open space where? Krauss: Well we've got a park, we are getting ultimately. You've got park!' dedication here. Batzli: Do you get that anyway? • Krauss: What you get though is you draw boxes around these trees. Ahrens: Why couldn't you get that... ,Krauss: Well ultimately we basically are getting it. Or getting something close. Batzli: In the straight subdivision? Krauss: Yeah. It looks more like this but I'm convinced that we could have done a better job had we still had some flexibility. I mean these arell what, these are executive home lots? I don't know what the current vernacular is but these are going to be more expensive homes up in the hill. They'll bump up to the homes in Timberwood. If we had some flexibility on lot area, we could encourage that trend a little bit more. Erhart: And those are what, 20,000 square feet? ' Krauss: Yeah. And this is completely without any influence. Ahrens: The developer makes more money off those treed lots too. I mean I1 can't believe they would come in and develop in a straight subdivision like that, lots that they wouldn't make much money off of. Krauss: Oh I think that's certainly true but I don't want to sound patronizing but after doing this for 15 years I've stopped fighting the free market impulse. I mean if we can come up with a scenario where they II make more money but we get something that we would prefer to have out of it anyway, that's fine with me. Ahrens: Right, but if we can get it anyway. 1 Emmings: I think Joan is saying, wouldn't he do that anyway. Just because 1 he's going to get more money off of it. Krauss: Well as I say, this story has a fairly happy ending. We're in the process of reviewing these plans and we'll see how, they look fairly good II at first blush. Batzli: But in general? I mean this example aside, wouldn't this normal average developer want to put larger houses in a treed area like that in the hills against a larger subdivision? Krauss: This developer happens to be a fairly quality, fairly reputable developer and the answer to your question in this case is yes. But developers run the gamet and we've had our share of developers who come in 1 1 'Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 24 here and say the subdivision says this and I'm not giving you once thing more. And from a legal standpoint that's an appropriate response. ' Farmakes: What about from the legal standpoint if you don't feel that the developer's providing for the intent, can you refuse it on that basis alone? Krauss: Sure. You can be fairly arbitrary on a rezoning action. Farmakes: Let's sa/ that we put black and white figures in here. Let's ' say we put specific figures about minimum square footage and some of the stuff that we've been talking. We still don't like the plan. Does that mean that legally the city can say then, we don't think so? Krauss: I don't know. Maybe we ought to have the City Attorney here to answer that specifically but Roger's always told us that we have a great amount of latitude on a rezoning action, particularly when they have recourse to do a standard subdivision anyway. I mean we're not taking away the use of their property. It clearly has a legitimate use. The developer is in a position of asking us for something above and beyond and you set out a district that says we have the expectation that we'll get something better than normal. You have that latitude. Farmakes: Peter Olin's letter in here talks about focusing on intent rather than the specifics. That being the case, that response from the attorney then would be important. He apparently says, he's talking about taking issues in court here but if they don't meet the intent of the statement, it seems to be kind of subjective. The intent isn't going to spelled out like square footage on a lot. ' Krauss: No. That's why I indicated that I agreed with Peter's approach but I think you have to set some bare minimum criteria. And you have to be specific as to what you want to achieve. Now Peter had some very mom and ' apple pie language that sounds pretty. I'm not certain that that alone is enough. Farmakes: I think it's reasonable to give a developer some specifics about_ ' what you feel the intent is going to be or what can sail through. It would seem to me that if you're going to offer a developer at the same time a specific idea of what he's going to gain from it so that he has the ' motivation, as we said before, if there's no motivation for them they're not going to do it. I would leave it up to them to come up with a creative way to solve that and I guess I'm not that uncomfortable with the minimums. I'm not sure about the 10 that we were originally proposing but if we could still refuse it by claiming that it doesn't the intent and we've specific with the intent, I'm not that uncomfortable with it. I'd rather see the creativity and the burden on them of solving our problems. If they do it, fine. If they don't. Krauss: We don't want anything close to just opening the door to a blanket PUD without that intent. If we had a'developer who's still working with us come in on another property off Audubon Road who builds lower end housing in Chaska. That kind of thing and there's a market for that but he came to us and the first question is well, he threw a plan on the table that had an 1 Planning Commission Meeting • March 4, 1992 - Page 25 1 average 10,000 square foot lot'size and said well, I'm going to do a PUD. I We said no you're not. Well you just took away 40 lots. Our response was you never had them in the first place. 5o that kind of a dialogue happens all the time. But if you have something that says well if you want to do a PUD, here's how you earn one and read the intent section and a couple of guidelines. Emmings: Maybe the best thing to do, it would be nice if we had some examples. Here are examples we've approved in our town that we're proud of. Batzli: Do we have any of those? • ' Emmings: Well, go take a look. Wouldn't that be a way to show a developer what we've got in mind? Krauss: Yeah, but I think Brian's question is accurate. Emmings: I don't know. It would be good if we could get one here that we I like so we could say this is the kind of thing. Batzli: Well, we may be proud of the Ersbo one when that's up. , Krauss: Except it was different. I mean that one ha a 30,000 square foot lot size. ' Batzli: But the effective lot size is much smaller given that most of it's in the swamp. I would favor going with an intent statement and a density. A warning and basically a statement that indicates that lot sizes below 15,000 will be scrutinized carefully by the City and maybe rejected out of hand. Something like that. Basically kind of, it basically puts I think something further in there that if you go below our minimum, we're going toll look at it carefully and we have the ability to reject it. That way they can go below but they're still going to be looking at a density and I'm more concerned about the people moving into the city in the end result. That they're somehow put on notice so the developer should be required to II during the sales process put them on notice that they're buying a PUD so that they have the opportunity to talk to what they're getting into. Conrad: The less we put down the more nervous the developer's going to be. Is that a fair statement Paul? Krauss: Well, they might... Conrad: The more specific he sees stuff, the more he knows if we can match it and helps him in the design stage so the less we put down, is he less likely to take a crack at it? Krauss: Until you get a track record of having said yes or no on some. 1 Emmings: Well it may depend on the developer too. Conrad: Developers put a lot of money into design. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 26 ' Emmings: We just had one come in and we approved a PUD and he not only didn't have any standards, we didn't have anything in our ordinance about residential PUD's. And he got approved. 1 Ahrens: You know I don't think we have to be so worried about scaring away developers. I really don't. I think that they're going to come in here. They want the land. They want to develop. I think that if a developer comes in for this specific piece of property and we said we have a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. He or she says I'm not interested in developing as a PUD. Then I want to go with the straight subdivision and we say that's fine but we have these stands of trees that you have to work around. Wouldn't we end up with just as good a product in the end because ,we'd have 15,000 square foot lot minimums? Krauss: I think it gets to Brian's question from last meeting. Can't you achieve the same thing without it? Ahrens: Yeah, I guess I'm not convinced that you can't. Krauss: I tend not to believe that we can. I mean the flexibility to ' alter standards gives you tremendous room to innovate. We don't have and no community has a standard that says you just can't cut down a significant stand of trees•. Now we're trying to develop an ordinance that would overlay the city that would get at that somehow. But the best way to avoid cutting a stand of trees is to allow the developer to build that house someplace else. I mean that's the carrot and the stick. You can mandate you so much and beyond that you've taken the person's property or you've ' damaged the land. If you allow that unit to be transferred to more appropriate site, everybody comes out better if it's done right. ' Emmings: I kind of agree with what Brian said. I'd go for an intent statement. A density and maybe I first thought it was a bad idea to put in the warning but I don't mind that the more I think about it. This plan over here which you're calling a PUD is. Batzli: This doesn't look like a PUD to me. ' Emmings: No. This is almost no creativity whatsoever over here. And I think that's proven by the fact that there's the same number of lots on each one somehow but still this is a better plan than this one, which as you say is an overstatement. This is still a better plan. And could this 1 plan be approved under our subdivision ordinance? Krauss: The better one? 1 Emmings: The one he's calling a PUD. It couldn't because of the small lots. But still this is a better plan than a straight subdivision on that 1 property I think. Krauss: Yes it is. Emmings: 5o this, even though it doesn't show much creativity or as much as you'd like to see, if we don't have a PUD ordinance we're going to wind up with things that are, we wouldn't be able to approve something like this 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 27 which would probably be a better plan. So I think it's important that we II have a PUD alternative. I think it ought to be, I don't think we should say anything about minimum lot size. Just talk about density. Maybe give the warning that the smaller the lots get, the harder we're going to look ; at them. Especially if they go below 15,000. I think that's a good approach. Farmakes: Is there enough of an incentive with your experience with ' developers between 15 and the 10 that we originally proposed? Krauss: It's a 50% reduction. I mean that's significant. Farmakes: What I'm saying is there enough of an incentive there. If you put the warning at 15, is there enough of an incentive there that they feel' if they get 12 or they do 13 that they may have a chance? Krauss: I honestly don't know Jeff. I mean it sounds reasonable. I guess we won't know until we try it. ' Emmings: But they're talking to you at the same time aren't they? I mean they're getting some direction from you too. ' Krauss: Oh sure. I mean this developer frankly, I mean he wanted, he originally talked about wanting to come before you and exploring it on a concept basis. I think it was after I last brought this up in December I II called him up and said forget it. Again I think he's come up with a pretty reasonable subdivision but some of this stuff that was nice and kind of helped to define that PUD was dropped out. I mean he had boulevard II landscaping. Well, he had a boulevarding of major streets and a couple of other features and they're not being proposed right now. What we're getting now is the landscaping along Lyman and Galpin that our new landscaping ordinance in the subdivision requires and the buffering and that's about it. It gives the capability to negotiate. There isn't a whole lot of latitude to do that in a straight subdivision. Batzli: I've said this facetiously before and I've said it kind of half seriously and I've said it seriously. I mean I still think that the best way to get them to go PUD, if that's how we want to do it so that we have II greater flexibility to protect some of these natural features, is to raise our other lot size, and I'll say it one last time before I give up, a broken and defeated man on this issue. Go ahead. Erhart: You mean raise our minimum lot size in the city? Batzli: Yeah. ' Erhart: That was my point at the last meeting and nobody talked about it so I almost wasn't going to bring it up. I think the choices are one, forget the PUD and stick with what we've got. Or two, if we really believe!' that practically every major subdivision that we're going to see has some unique characteristics about it that we would like, rather than us try to , dictate what gets done to preserve it. To allow the developer to be creative in how to preserve some wooded land or some open area or whatever. The only way that it's going to work, and three. Is that I personally 1 1 »Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 28 e believe that 10,000 square foot lots are too small. I think that a 12,500 square foot lot for example, perhaps is what we ought to have as what we would consider a small lot. I've always, on one hand I've always said that ' we want to prevent urban sprawl. One of the ways to do it is to allow your average lot size to be small. On the other hand, I've always been a little concerned that 15,000 might be a little bit too small for a standard lot. When you tie all those together it tells me that the only way to do this PUD is to raise the average, our standard lot size here to, I'm going to say 17,500. I have no magic number but I'm just going to say that number. You make the increment to motivate him 500 square feet, or 5,000 square feet allows him to go down to 12,500. And so that gives him the incentive. It solves the problem of the concern of some of the Council members and I think myself below 12,500 is a little bit, it's a pretty small lot. The ' second thing is that limits the number of lots that can be that small to some percent of the lots in that development. At least 10 %. Maybe it's 30 %. I don't know. I didn't look at examples but I think we've got those two choices. Either we can forget the PUD or the other side is, you're going to make it work we're going to have to raise our standard lot size so we can offer incentive. Ahrens: I agree that if we go with smaller lot sizes we should be more specific. I mean we seem to have a meeting of the minds here between the staff and the present Planning Commission what we mean when we say there shouldn't be too many small lots and we'll look closely at them and we're giving you a warning that you'd better come in with a proper sized development. But nobody else is going to understand after we've moved on to greater things what we meant by that. 1 Emmings: But the density will prevent you from having too many small lots. If you have a density for the project of 1.8 or whatever, you don't have to worry about it do you? Conrad: But you could still have some theoretically. I'm comfortable with that. I always have been. Ever since we started talking about this but 1 everybody else is worried about minimum lot sizes and I'm not. Emmings: No, I'm not either. 1 Erhart: But density is just another way of saying the same thing. I'm comfortable with density. ' Conrad :, No. Density will allow you to have a 5,000 square foot lot. Erhart: No, but you've still got to have minimum lot sizes. 11 Ahrens: Yeah if you have density, couldn't you still end up with three huge lots and maybe two little tiny ones? Conrad: He'd probably not want to do that. But in that situation, that's so obvious we wouldn't even consider that and I think Paul could reflect that pretty well. Ahrens: But what about? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 29 Conrad: Future generations? ' Ahrens: 10 years from now. Batzli: But see that may be, if they want that, then we should give them II the flexibility. I mean this is a living, breathing statute. Why lock them in? Maybe that's what they're going to love in 10 years when we've all moved on. I don't know. Conrad: Absolutely. Emmings: I'm not worried about 5,000 square foot lots. ' Conrad: I'm not either. Batzli: Does anybody other than Tim and I, would anyone like to see staff taking a look at raising the lot size in our other districts? Ladd? Conrad: No. Batzli: Steve? , Emmings: I don't know. I haven't really thought about it. Conrad: It's a lousy way to back into a PUD ordinance. If we feel that well are crammed right now, then we should be looking. You know we don't raise lot sizes so we can have a creative PUD. If we feel that we're developing at a too dense a rate right now and people are, our decks are leaning over each other's property lines, well then let's take a look and let's get the whole community back in here and start looking at what our zoning and our lot sizes should be for every category. I can't imagine the city wants to do that right now. I haven't heard one person, not one person other than you Brian talk about lot sizes. Really in the last so many years, nobody's talking. • Emmings: And we spent so much time arriving at the subdivision ordinance ' and it seems to be working. It seems to be working okay. Conrad: I love large lots. That's why I'm out here. It's the only reason I'm in Chanhassen is because we have some big areas. But I just, at this point in time this is, if people want smaller lots. Things are changing to say the smaller. The costs are getting greater. For us philosophically to say to the developers we now want 17,000 square foot lots, that's a different course for Chanhassen and I don't think we should do it because of the PUD ordinance. We should do it because we feel as a II community that we want to send a signal to people that this is sort of an open space community. Batzli: Well, that's the issue brought up by Olin in his memo and that's II why I guess I'm wondering why you're not talking about it and that is, he says the suggestion of the PUD is to preserve the physical and social character of Chanhassen. Well we aren't going to preserve it by putting in 12,000 square foot lots. 1 1 ,Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 30 ' Conrad: Ah, but you can preserve. Emmings: Wait a minute. That's not what we're doing. Batzli: I know. But that's the intent that he's written and no one has said I disagree or that's not what we're here for. That's just, I thought it was interesting. Emmings: But you can't say that anybody's proposing to put in 12,000 square foot lots, • ' Erhart: Steve, what's your reaction to the plan where you have how many 10,000 square foot lots in that one area? 1 Krauss: 10? I don't know. Erhart: Just take a guess. 30? ' Krauss: It's probably more like 40 or 50. ' Erhart: And what is your reaction to that? Emmings: I haven't looked at this. My reaction with,regard to what? ' Erhart: Just seeing forty 10,000 square foot lots all bunched together, what was your reaction or anybody's reaction to that? Emmings: It's 40 what on here? The density of this thing is 1.9. It's a little bit above what a straight subdivision is. ' Erhart: But the concept that you could put in forty 10,000 square foot lots all together in one spot. How does that strike you? Emmings: Is that what's on here? Erhart: Yeah. - Emmings: I don't know. It doesn't'scare me. I mean I wouldn't reject it out of hand. Batzli: Jeff, do you want to look at raising the lot size in the rest of ' the districts or no? Farmakes: I wouldn't be adverse to do it. I guess I fall back that if we're going to proceed with the PUD, there has to be an incentive for the builder or we shouldn't do it period. If we can't come up with an incentive, I don't think we should waste our time with it. I think that there's a reason to have a PUD. I think we should pursue that. If it's a warning, that seems reasonable to me. But there has to be a difference between 10,000 and 15,000 if that's what we're going to have as our base. If it's going to be 20,000 and a 15,000 minimum, that's an incentive. I think we're just, to quote a phrase that you've had in here 3 times, we're just beating a dead horse. We're talking about some different issues that converge at times but I still feel that if you've got it within the 5,000 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 — Page 31 square feet somewhere in there that the builder's going to come in with something there that he gets, the city gets, and leave it up to him to come in and show us what it is we're getting. And that's the incentive. Somewhere in what you're talking about here is that 5,000 square feet. If!' it's a difference between 15 and 20 or 10 and 15. Leave it up to him to come in here and say that this is, I'm meeting your requirements of a percentage for the amount of smaller lots with a cap and I'm meeting your density requirements. Then we can argue about whether or not he's met our intent. Batzli: Okay. So you'd like to see, and correct me when I go astray here." You'd like to see an intent section and a density and potentially a cap on the percentage or a floor? Farmakes: I'm not as worried about a cap on .there. As long as we can pull the rug out on the intent statement that he's not meeting it. And I think that somewhat that warning in there gives them your intent. If it's 15 or it's 20 or if it's 10, I do agree that the overall size of our lot is something that's probably a separate issue because that's going to affect also considerably the difference in land cost to a potential home buyer. And I think that your, as we raise that up we should look at that very II carefully because the cost of housing in this area is pretty steep and it leaves out certain groups of, economic groups of people purchasing into a home here. And when we start adding on 20% to the land cost we should look at that. Batzli: Joan? Ahrens: What was the question? Batzli: The question was, do you want the staff to look at raising the'lot' size in Chanhassen? And the second question is, are you comfortable proceeding on this so we can give some direction to staff so we can finally move it on? Putting in the density and an intent section. " Ahrens: What's the warning in there? Batzli: Well the warning would be, if they get too small we're going to II look at it very closely. I mean it's basically part of the intent. Emmings: The smaller they get, the harder we look. , Batzli: Yeah. Ahrens: I also worry about pricing people out of the market here. I don't" like that idea either. Batzli: I don't think we're doing anything other than what. " Ahrens: By raising the minimum lot size. Batzli: The density puts it at a regular subdivision. 1 " .Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 32 ' Ahrens: However, I'm not opposed to looking at raising the minimum lot size. I guess I'm not opposed to that but it seems like every time we take a look at this there's, we throw a new curve into it. ' Batzli: I'm not proposing to tie that into the PUD. I say we move the PUD along and if we decide to look at the minimum lot size in the other districts, we do that but that's not part of what we're doing tonight. I Ahrens: So you're saying as a separate issue, let us examine raising the minimum lot sizes in Chanhassen which I'm not opposed to looking at ' something. At that. On the other hand, the other issue that you brought up of the PUD, I guess I'm still not comfortable with the whole density ,idea. I mean I like the intent statement. I think the warning statement is okay but I don't know. Batzli: Just kind of a showing of hands here for direction to staff, who would like to see staff proceed with intent, density and warning? Okay. Go ' for it guys. Conrad: There you go. It's back to you Paul. What more can we do? t Batzli: What else do you want to know? We're out of time. Krauss: As far as that goes, that's fine. But you've raised the issue of ' raising lot areas. I guess if I could, I'd like to throw my two cents into it. Our minimum lot size is already substantially greater than most every community in the Twin Cities with a few exceptions. Those few exceptions tend to be Minnetonka and Orono and communities of that, or if you're going to go out further to Lake Elmo or places that have an intent of staying hobby farmish or quasi - rural. There is a direct translation between lot ' area and cost and it's a significant one. The process is escalating. The land cost is escalating rapidly. Thirdly, our lot areas are not only one of the largest lot areas in the Twin Cities but our density is even lower than it would imply because we've been a no net loss wetlands community and we've preserved other features. You have a very substantial park dedication. We're on the outer fringes of both of those. So when we tell a developer yeah, we have a 15,000 square foot lot size, it actually takes_ them a lot more land to get to that 15,000 square foot than it does in most other communities. Now the new State wetlands law will tend to equalize that a little bit but our density, our average density of 1.7 -1.8 units per ' acre, 1.9, in that range, is one of the lowest the Metro Council's ever seen. They had to develop a new standard for us because their usual rules of thumb didn't apply in Chanhassen. The last aspect of it is, is we've got 10 -12 years of utility projects, assessed utility projects that are based on a density of 15,000 square feet. All these projects were assessed on the presumption that there was x number of units on a piece of ground. If we changed the rules, I think we might owe a lot of people a lot of ' money. So I just throw that out for some thought. Batzli: My personal feeling is by asking staff to look into this and I think that, I thought I heard the other night at the City Council that at least the Mayor and Councilman Wing expressed that 15,000 might be too small. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 33 Emmings: I didn't hear that. ' Batzli: I thought I heard that. Councilman Wing: Pretty loud and clear. One said 20 and one said 18. , Batzli: Yeah, so I thought that we had some people at the Council also interested in taking a look at it. Now the number on this group that wants to look at it appears to be maybe 3 or 4 and some people are comfortable with it. Ladd's probably fought through the subdivision ordinance once. He doesn't want to touch it again and that's fine and he's, I mean he's got a II large lot. He doesn't need to look at it again. Me on the other hand, I'm still looking for that large lot. Emmings: Couldn't you buy the lot next door? ' Batzli: I think I'm going to. Okay. What I'd like to do is at least with, I don't want a 3 week study on it. What I'd like to know though is if you do have some information on you know, and I'm sure you've given this to us before, what are the neighboring community lot sizes and what are the issues. I don't even want them discussed in depth other than so we can 11 throw it around and see if we want to look at it more. Because I think we've got at least 2 people on the Council who expressed that they've felt that it may be a little low and I'd like to know what goes into the decision to make it low or high and if we do change it, are we going to owe, thousands of people so much money we can't even take a look at it at this point. So that's what I'd like to see. If other people disagree with me, speak up. 1 Emmings: If you decide to go back into the subdivision ordinance to look at lot size, Ladd and I have a mutual suicide pact. - 1 Conrad: I kill Steve first. Emmings: We won't be here. I tell you, you think this is hard to do. This PUD. Batzli: Are you adverse to at least the staff bringing up the issues of II what are the factors that go into deciding this? I mean obviously you two don't want to get into it? Emmings: Go into deciding what? ' Batzli: What the minimum lot size is and if you raised it, what would the ' issues be that we'd have to look at. What would be the process. I mean it's clear that you two have no interest in raising it. Conrad: I have no interest so you do what you like. If there's votes from, I think Tim would go along with you. Erhart: Well let me say, I guess after Paul's comments, I guess I wasn't, it was kind of surprising to me that our's would already be larger. If you consider average around the western suburbs or any suburbs I guess of the metropolitan area. 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 34 Krauss: Well again, you will Hind some that are as big, if not bigger and ' you try to figure out what's a comparable community and it's always tough and we can give you, I think you've got some statistics in here. 1 Erhart: What's Eden Prairie? Krauss: 13,500. 1 Erhart: For minimum lot size? Krauss: We can give you the Victoria's and Chaska. Well I think Chaska is 1 less but I'm not sure of that. We can certainly give that to you. It's not so hard. 1 Emmings: Now excuse me but in the materials you gave us tonight, under PUD lot size survey, it says Eden Prairie 13,500. Krauss: Yeah, it's the same thing as their. Emmings: Same in the subdivision? Oh, okay. 1 Ahrens: So what the incentive? Krauss: I don't think there is one in Eden Prairie. ' II Erhart: Well, if that's the case and our two elder commissioners here don't want to touch it. Conrad: No, no. Don't use us because...maybe we're out of touch. Batzli: But I would just like a 15 -20 minute discussion and just some of 1 the basic issues that we'd have to look at and... Conrad: I think Council is interested so I think from your standpoint Brian it's probably not a bad thing and maybe that's information that they're going to ask Paul anyway. So your asking staff to generate it is probably a wise idea. Whether Steve and I are interested in it or not. I ' think Dick, Richard cares about it and other Council members do. Emmings: And we'll participate in the discussion. 1 Batzli: Let's do that at an upcoming meeting at some time. Put it on our list of things to do. Do you have enough direction on the PUD as to what the heck we're trying to do now? 1 Conrad: Let's have Paul replay back what we might be asking him for. One thing just sort of intrigued me. Aren't there, and I'm a believer in PUD's and I'm not sure that we're ever going to find a perfect one but Paul you never brought us an ordinance that may have come, been generated in an ivy tower environment out of American Planning Association or whatever. Aren't there model PUD ordinances? t Batzli: We got one. Didn't that consultant guy give us one? Last summer. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 35 1 Krauss: Shardlow? Yeah he did and I don't recall what it had for a lot II size. Conrad: That would be interesting but I liked what Peter Olin talked about in terms of a little bit more vague ordinance but if you did what we just II asked you to do, a very strong intent statement and I think you've already got that from what I recall. We have an intent statement. We have, are we talking net density or are we talking gross density? II Batzli: Net. Krauss: ...pretty consistent throughout as net. 1 `Conrad: So we're talking net density, okay. Batzli: That takes out the. II Conrad: That just takes out streets. II Krauss: And wetlands. Conrad: Does it take out wetlands? Okay. That's good. Will our II comprehensive plan drive the net density? Won't the comprehensive plan place in the net density that we should be using here? Krauss: It does but the comprehensive plan may actually give more latitude!' than you want to. Conrad: As a range out there. II Krauss: It goes 0 to 4 I believe and 4 is probably higher than you would prefer in these areas. II Ahrens: Do you exclude easements? Krauss: No. For what? If it's an easement over a wetland or a roadway, II yeah but otherwise not. If it's a park dedication, I think parks are Ai actually excluded. That's a question that we had and it's a matter of interpretation. I mean it's not for this time and place but are parks excluded from the net buildable? I would argue that they can't be because we haven't taken possession of the park. I mean that's part of the dedication process. You have 10 acres of land, you owe us so many acres of" park. Ahrens: It's the chicken and the egg... 1 Krauss: Well but it's a double hit to say give us your park and then we'll figure out your density of what you have entitled to on what's left. II Emmings: The park that's up there on this plan, is that part of the 81 acres that's here? Krauss: Yes. ' II 1 Planning Commission Meeting .March 4, 1992 - Page 36 Batzli: That's fair. That's okay that you do that. ' Emmings: The only thing I don't like there is it's shoved off on the edge. Why the hell isn't it in the middle somewhere? • Krauss: Well there's a reason for that. There's a slope with a heavily forested ravine that's really quite attractive in a natural area going back in there. They had talked about trying to shoehorn a few lots in there and in talking to our parks folks, we figured that it was better to do it this way. ' Batzli: I guess they do have a path back there. Conrad: So Brian, I'm just trying to make sure staff or Paul's going in 1 the right direction here. At least one that we're all consistent with. Your comments on the warnings. So we're talking about net density, intent and then some warning statements. Is that what you said? Batzli: Yeah. Conrad: Saying if you go, now our past PUD ordinance did allow a minimum ' of 12,500 as a minimum lot size isn't that right Paul and did we restrict the number of those units? • Krauss: I think there was an average as well. An average minimum. Conrad: There was an average in there. Krauss: And it was like 13,500 so, I believe. Conrad: Yeah. Krauss: So you were sort of forcing that number up. It got at the issue a different way. -So your warning is if you go under 15 we're going to look real hard at what you're doing? Batzli: Yeah. I think that just puts it on the table because that's what we're going to do anyway. Conrad: But you're not interested in going down to 10. Batzli: I'll be candid. If Lundgren came in and said they were going to develop some houses like they did up in Near Mountain and do a good job and the people knew what they were getting into, I might not have a problem with it. Those people appear to be happy. The houses don't turn over every 10 months or anything like that but it's going to be a case by case basis and I don't even know that the City Council has comfort that we even want to give developers an opportunity but I say let's float it up there and let them shoot it down and tell us what they want at this point. Let's get it up there so they can consider it and I think that it potentially could be done right. I haven't seen necessarily a small lot development in this city done right yet but it could - be done and I think it's a case of the developer coming in and Paul dealing with the developer and basically we've got to put our trust in the people in the planning department. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 37 1 Conrad: How do you get to small lots Paul? How do you get to higher density? How do you get to density transfer? How do you get more density II on part of this property and less in another Paul? Krauss: That's what your intent statement does. And you're basically clarifying the issue. You're saying there are things on properties that we find of value and we can list what those are. I mean the list is, mature stands of trees. Interesting terrain and to the extent that you can demonstrate that by the use of the PUD that you've accomplished extra ordinary preservation of these things, then the City will consider or may consider flexibility in other areas such as lot area. 1 Conrad: Do you recommend that we have a minimum set out there for developer purposes given the nature you feel? , Krauss: I would say that you probably, just as a matter of comfort level I would think you would. I mean I don't want, I continue to go back to, I need a bare minimum to tell the developer whether or not that lot that they, proposed is a utilizeable lot. Now if we get at that by saying, I'd rather, instead of maybe saying not saying 10,000 feet. I like the approach of saying you'll have a useable lot area that can accommodate a home. Same thing as you just did with the on site sewer and those lots. Demonstrate this. Batzli: So in addition to what we just told you to do, you would like something in there that talks about, you have enough, you can demonstrate II that a house and the backyard and a deck can fit on there? Krauss: Right. 1 Batzli: That'd be fine with me. That'd be fine with me to include that. Now the Council may look at it and say, I still hate it. You've got to put a 13,000 square foot limit in there. That's fine but let's send it up there and let them do it. Conrad: But then we really haven't done diddily with our PUD ordinance. The previous ordinance is probably better. Krauss: Well the previous ordinance allowed all the transgress that occurred. - Conrad: So are we going to net out anything? Are we going to net out , someplace better with this ordinance? Krauss: I think if an ordinance comes together and it's ultimately approved along the lines that we're just mentioned, I think that's yeah. That gives the creativity with the control. If we're going to go back into the straight jacket that we had originally which doesn't, seems to give a developer some latitude but doesn't give the City anything, I'd advised you 11 to just drop it. Batzli: Any other discussion on this? Go for it Paul. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 'March 4, 1992 - Page 38 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 19, 1992 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: 1 Krauss: I'll skip through that. The only thing of interest I think there was Commissioner Batzli was at it and Dick was at it, Councilman Wing. We had a Council goals setting meeting last Saturday? Last Saturday or the Saturday before. Last Saturday and we discussed a variety of things. They told me that I couldn't have any more than 30 minutes because last year I hogged the floor I guess but we did talk a lot about TH 5 corridor in particular and there is a lot of support for doing it. It's still a matter of doing what exactly and how much is it going to cost. One of the things `we laid on the table is a relatively recent occurrence and it has to do with the Federal Highway Act. The Federal Transportation Bill stands all previous highway funding bills on it's head. Don Ashworth is amazed that the original highway bills go back to 1956 under the Eisenhower Administration and really have changed in any significant way since then. The new bill basically sets out not only funding for highways but for transit and pedestrian access and for building bridges and for projects that seek to tie a community together rather than having a highway split it apart. That have specifically allocated funds for design amenities. There's a specific provision in there to build wooden bridges. I mean there's all kinds of things in there and the highway folks are amazed that it came down the way it did. Bill Morrish has been talking to me about it because he apparently had some input with Moyanhan's committee in Washington where the bill was drafted. The long and the short of it is, we'd like to think that we have some potential for making TH 5 a demonstration project and tapping into those sources of funds. So we're going to try and figure out exactly what that entails. MnDot really doesn't know yet. And put together a package to get going on the work. Batzli: Do you want to let the other commissioners know what happened on the TH 5 corridor study as far as the consulting and things like that? Do ' you want to touch on that as far as the presentation at the Council meeting last Monday. A week ago Monday. Whenever it was. Krauss: Oh, oh, oh. Yeah, well basically I forwarded your recommendation' 1 and the work that's been done to date and again the Council was very supportive of doing it but balked or really had some trouble understanding where we'd come up with the money to finance it. We were directed to clarify that a little bit. The Mayor asked that I get some more specific cost estimates. We also were asked to, you know Don Ashworth was asked to see if there's anyplace in the budget to do that. Don is, for those of you who haven't worked with him, he's really a financial wizard. I mean it's kind of amazing of his ability to pull stuff out of hats. Unfortunately he's running out of hats and every time the State government looks to give somebody a knock on the head to make the budget balance, they look to local government and we're expecting another pretty good hit shortly. So the well may be running somewhat dry but again if we use it, if we structure it that we're tapping into another, working towards tapping into another 1 source of funds, there may be some way of shaking something loose. One of the things I stressed to the Council is everybody on my staff is anxious to work on a TH 5 project. It's one of those trend setting projects that are 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 — Page 39 , a heck of a lot of fun and really a professional challenge but I'm going t be real short handed this summer. Jo Ann, as you can see is only going to last another 5, 6, 7 weeks if we're lucky and the amount of new development coming in the door is getting staggering. It's getting frightening. Emmings: What kind of development? ' Krauss: Well I ran through a litany of some of it. Some of it you know of. You know Ryan's obviously going to final plat their's and get going. Hans Hagen Homes, this one that we talked about here has submitted and is on, not your next agenda. We don't have anything on your next agenda for right now but your following agenda. That's for 150 units. The Donovan property up on Teton where the barricade is. Donovan's the fellow who tol you he'd never subdivide so you didn't have to improve Teton. Well he lost his property in a Sheriff's sale I believe and that's being proposed for 111 units. That's on your agenda. We are coming, the fellow we've been telling you about for 2 years was trying to put together a proposal for the Assumption Seminary actually has submitted a PUD concept plan and it's II really kind of interesting. I think he's probably going to try to touch base with all of you just to talk over some of the guidelines they're working with you and I think they're working towards setting up a bus trip to their, they have a convention hotel facility they built in Stillwater and they'd like to show us how that place looks. It's a historic rennovation and restaurant so if that comes together,•if you're willing to do that, that's something that's on the horizon. In addition Lundgren is cranking very hard on bringing in their subdivision north of TH 5. The one, that you saw a year ago in the Comp Plan. Emmings: By TH 41? ' Krauss: Yes. So we expect to have that shortly. On Rod Gram's property, they're supposed to be submitting in the next week another plat for about II 150 homes. I got a call this afternoon that Rottlund has purchased or has a purchase option on the Dolejsi property. A 55 acre piece off of Lyman and TH 101. We also hear that SoftSoap is going to make a decision on a site in Chanhassen within the next 90 days for 350,000 square foot facility' and the rumors are ripe as to which site Target's actually going to go on. Batzli: When do we start seeing all the beachlots also? ' Emmings: What was that last one? Erhart: Yeah, slow down. , Emmings: What was that last one on Target? Krauss: Target is looking at a number of sites in the city. We've know this for a while but we don't, I mean Target doesn't talk to us. The brokers talk to us and they have looked at, sites that they've looked at II are, they looked at the Ward property and apparently that's not going forward. They looked at the Eckankar site and haven't been successful with that. They are currently looking at the Burdick piece. Emmings: They've looked at that before. 1 1 • Planning Commission Meeting 'March 4, 1992 - Page 40 Krauss: Well they looked at that before 2 years ago when it looked like they could do that in lieu of Market Square. Oh, Market Square closed. Virtually. No, no, actually the ground breaking is supposed to be on St. Patrick's Day. Emmings: We can go and buy some virtual groceries at the virtual grocery store. Krauss: No, it's as good as a done deal. I mean it is a done deal for all intensive purposes so that's happening. 1 Erhart: Where is SoftSoap going? Krauss: SoftSoap is looking at the Redmond expansion piece that they never ' built on on that unbuilt section of Lake Drive. By the railway tracks. They're looking at two, well the Ryan plat that you're aware of and a potential site on a Ryan plat that really hasn't come together yet by TH 5. They're looking at the land that McGlynn's owns on the corner. And they're looking at that project that Paul Steiner and the Opus Corporation are looking to do on that 190 acres out by TH 5 and TH 41. • Erhart: What's the Dolejsi? Krauss: Dolejsi is a 55 acre chunk, well in fact when you go home to your II x house, when you make that last turn. Erhart: The one that we were talking about? Krauss: Which one? Well just as you make that final 90 degree turn, it's off to your left. North of Kevin Finger. Erhart: The one we were talking about the other day. Yeah. So there is something going on there? Krauss: Yeah, but the original developers for that are not, I mean this is now, I just forgot their name. Rottlund Homes. It wasn't the original group. You go into your office and you get a stack of messages and you get another 150 unit plat. It's kind of mind boggling. There's going to ' probably be some difficulty in getting it all done frankly. The difficulty is the city only has so much bonding capacity to finance projects and the Upper Bluff Creek project alone I think is a 4 or 5 million dollar project. Erhart: 'Oh the sewer and water? Krauss: So even if we have enough people on tap to pay for these things, we still have to go into a debt situation to get them going and we already have one of the highest per capita debts in the Twin Cities. I mean it's fully financed. I mean it's backed by development that's on the ground but it doesn't look great at the moment. Batzli: When do we start looking at beachlots? 1 Aanenson: We're shooting for April 15th. 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting . March 4, 1992 - Page 41 1 Batzli: 5o we're going to have all those on our agendas also. Aanenson: We're going to try and take 2 or 3 a meeting. Batzli: We're going to be busy. Okay, we don't have anything on our agenda for next week at all yet? Do we want to have a little vacation, mini vacation here? Erhart: We have nothing on the agenda? ' Aanenson: Unless you want to follow up with that comp plan land use 11 amendment. The one we just tabled tonight. Erhart: Oh the rural thing. Krauss: Can we play this by ear for a couple of days? We've got a lot 1 happening at the same time. If we can give you some structure, I mean get back to you on some of these things, then I'll talk to Brian and we'll go ahead. Otherwise we'll let you know. Batzli: If your time would be better spent working on corridor study issues, I'm just concerned that we're going to make work for you to get 1 something on our agenda for next week that's taking away from something that needs to get more of your attention. Krauss: Well it gets mind boggling all the stuff that's happening right ' now. Some of it doesn't involve you directly. It involves me. We're going into construction hopefully in the next few weeks on the senior center behind that wall. I've been involved with that intimately. As far II as the TH 5 corridor study goes, one of the things we need to do is we need to, we're getting into some more meetings with MnDot trying to define the study. We've been working with the school district quite a bit. I was at II the School District meeting on Monday night to try and figure out what their needs are. They just came back with demographic projections that projected a 50% increase in school population in a relatively short period of time and the weird thing is I think they significantly under estimated what's going to happen. And they're shocked about dealing with what they think is going to happen. So there's a lot of things swirling around. Emmings: Is this the Chaska School District you're talking about? Farmakes: Has there been any discussion for the Middle School? ' Krauss: Yeah. That's in fact the case in point. When Ryan was moving ahead, in fact Ryan did submit plans to us for that area north of Timberwood. Remember the concept is that it had to be office or walk like I it or look like it and basically of very high quality. One of the conditions was that the school site had to be locked up. Well that's kind of our role in the public /private partnership. Well the school originally II told us that that 40 acre site at the corner was plenty big. And now they're telling us that it doesn't meet their needs and their needs are truly astonishing. They wanted 4 baseball fields, 2 softball fields, 2 football fields, 4 tennis courts. l 1 Planning Commission Meeting II 'March 4, 1992 - Page 42 Ahrens: They're right across the street from a park. Krauss: Well to an extent we want to piggyback city recreational facilities onto this but we frankly don't understand why a Middle School needs that much. Now we've been told that the State is now mandating exactly what a school has to be outfitted with. In fact we called the State and we're getting conflicting information. But they are looking at a bigger site. The School District really doesn't have a handle on what's happening to it. I Farmakes: I had heard terms used as a high school. Then I heard middle school then I heard high school again. I was just wondering in the interplay between the make -up of that committee. I know it's oriented towards Chaska. There are more people on that committee that live in Chaska and I was wondering what that, how that played with the numbers that they're talking about. Krauss: The numbers weren't influenced by that. I mean the numbers were prepared by Barbara Lukerman who's an old Metro Council and University of Minnesota. Farmakes: No, I didn't mean it for that. What I was talking about where obviously the numbers projected are different for a high school than they are for a middle school. I just heard that flip flopping information about high school and then I heard middle school. Krauss: There is no definitive position. When we did the comp plan, we 1 worked with a fellow who was then the, not the superintendent but the administrator for the school district and he had told us that their most likely need is for a middle school. And in fact 2 years later we're finding from the architectural force that the middle school is severely undersized and inadequate to meet their goals. The high school is equally undersized. What we've been told is there's a possibility it could be a high school. It could be a middle school. The politics of the situation, 1 if I could speculate on that is that there is a very high potential that there'd be an extreme amount of relunctance on the part of Chaska to lose Chaska High School. So even if it makes sense to do it from an operational physical plan standpoint, and I'm not sure it does at this point, 1 don't . know that there's a great likelihood that that would happen. But this group that we're working with is not only doing physical plans. They're trying to figure out what their program needs are. How they want to break dawn classes. They're in the process of changing athletic conferences to the Lake Conference and I think they need expanded facilities for that. So there's a lot going on. Farmakes: That's obviously something where the two communities are going to meet, run into each other in that area. I'm just wondering if we're ' anticipating that it eventually, if they look that far down the road that we have a high school, we have a middle school because right now we're sort of dealing with that from a rural standpoint where all that education is centered in one area and we bus everybody from all the communities in. As we overtake them in population, which it seems to me. Krauss: We did. 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - ' ='age 43 1 Farmakes: I mean even more so! 5,000 say. 10,000. What that will incur II and where we center our educational system within this city. OPEN DISCUSSION: GROUP HOMES. I Krauss: I don't know what all I can say about it in the interest of being brief. I think we have, we need to clarify some stuff in our ordinance and I tried to tell you what our philosphical position is on these things. That we believe we have an obligation to serve the needs of all our residents in a fair way but right now you've got a problem waiting to occur. When one of the primary standards for siting a large group home in our community is that it has to have a good septic tank, we're missing the point. Minnetonka, to give credit where it's due. It wasn't me but it was the woman who's the Planning Director still over there, took some real innovative steps with these things. Ann Perry worked on a Hennepin County II committee to help move these facilities around and came up with standards that were really tested under fire in Minnetonka in several situations. One was a group home for troubled teenagers going into an old school. Another II was a shelter for battered women. What I ask you to do is take a look at the standards in the Minnetonka ordinance. We can adopt something like that. We can work on something else but I threw that on the table because 11 I think it does a fairly good job. Batzli: I liked the standards. It looked to me like'it buffered it. It took into account size and impact on the neighboring properties so I II " thought it was a real good, you know use that as a model. I guess that's what I'd like to see. What does everybody else say? Ahrens: 1 think it's well written. 1 8atzli: Yeah. So do we want staff to draw something like that up? Is that how we want to use up more of that time with? ' Krauss: I'd also tell you too, I want to contact Chuck Gabrielson and get his input on it. Chuck is the program director of the only real group home' we have in the city right now. I think he's a pretty decent fella who would give us his comments. Batzli: Straight scoop. Okay. , Farmakes: Can I ask a question, since as I'm not as experienced as some of the people on here. One of the definitions they had in here was mentally II ill. Is there a definition for that? It's kind of a broad range. Krauss: I don't know. Emmings: I'm sure there must be. I'm sure there is. The State has to have one because they have MI programs and they've got to have a definition. I don't know what it is though. Farmakes: And there isn't a definition in here for criminal group home or people who are coming out of prison. Emmings: Halfway house? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 'March 4, 1992 - Page 44 1 Farmakes: Halfway house. Does that come under that? Krauss: Well I don't know. That's the details you need to get into because a lot of those are not licensed specifically by the State. Judges can remand people to certain homes. Emmings: I wasn't thinking we were talking about those when I was reading I this. Batzli: No, I guess I wasn't either. That's an interesting point though Jeff. Emmings: I think we're talking about licenses. ' Farmakes: Well I was talking about some of the problems they've had in Minnetonka in a group home there where people who are sexual offenders. Krauss: Oh, that was not actually a legal group home. That was a defacto one that was taken over by Reverend Ralph. I forget his full name but... Farmakes: But it was a group home? 1 Krauss: It was not in compliance. The guy bought the home and he was, I don't know if he was ordained but he was a minister of some sort and he started having services in his home for theoretically an outreach and he turned into a defacto group home. It didn't meet the City's criteria. I forget why but I know that the zoning administrator was after them to close the place down for a long period of time and it ultimately was. Farmakes: My only comment was, the intent I think in the Minnetonka ordinance is fine. I did have some questions in that regard and I also had a few questions in the issue of, I'm assuming that this is for profit and not for profit in regards to these? Krauss: It could be either. Farmakes: Either. And the two instances I've known in the southwest suburbs here where there's been a problem like I just mentioned, neither 11 one of those house residents were from the community. I refer back to the intent that you originally referred to in here and I'm wondering how much of that if it is for profit, some of these homes primarily get their clients from out of the community. Krauss: The issue as to whether somebody's remanded by a Judge or a court system probably needs to be addressed and frankly, part of the Minnetonka ordinance that I was less than comfortable with is the lack of assurances. I mean some of the stuff that Minnetonka did, there's one for the teenagers that were remanded by a Judge was done fairly sensitively. They put City Planning Commissioners and City Council people on their Board and all that but this is a program where the kids are not locked in and have the ability to run. The question came up, what happens if they take off? The answer was, well then they're out of the program. Well, that wasn't a good enough response and I felt less than comfortable with that. But those were conditions that could be placed upon the permit. I'll try and get you more 1 Planning Commission Meeting • March 4, 1992 - Page 45 information on that. There's another one too I think Jeff that you're II mentioning that is a large group home where they did have a problem where somebody, I think was raped from somebody and that was up on Hwy 12. I forget the details beyond that. Farmakes: How about the one in Chaska? Krauss: The one I'm thinking of is just on Hwy 12 just before you get into' Wayzata. But I'll try and clarify that. You shouldn't be buying something that you're not, that opens up the door. But the ones in Minnetonka that were the more tragic situations I think were the home for 11 battered women. And it was a neighborhood dispute that was, I mean this ordinance was developed basically in response to the situations that arose from that. There was a group home for mentally retarded kids suffering from a very exotic syndrome called Praderwilly Syndrome where they literally will eat themselves to death. And they need to be in a full residential situation with full time guidance and they bought an old mansion over by Minnehaha Creek in Minnetonka Mills and it caused a big neighborhood uproar. Oddly enough though after they moved that program out of there, there were other groups homes that tried to get into -there because it was set up with dormintories and what not and they didn't meet the criteria. Primarily because they were at the end of a residential cul -de -sac. It was just inappropriately placed and there wasn't sufficient open space to justify that level of occupancy. And basically you had a white elephant and they couldn't occupy it again with a group residence.. I ' think converted it back to a single family home. We can get into that a little more. Batzli: Okay, but you're comfortable with at least the direction? 1 Farmakes: Yeah, I just wanted to bring up those points because when I read through it, those really weren't answered in there. DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT REGARDING SALES OF SEXUALLY ORIENTED MATERIAL. Krauss: First Amendment, Supreme Court, you can't do it. There's only two l options for doing it. Roger's told us this before and I guess it hasn't changed substantially although I keep hearing of some new rulings that are coming down but chip away at the edges of it. You either can designate an area you want to give up on, the war zone concept or you can come up with standards that say things like it can't be within 500 feet of a church or 1,.000 feet of a daycare center but then you have to overlay all those criteria on a map and if you don't have a site that fits it, you've just broken the law. I'm not sure if there's any good solution to this thing. It's a little frustrating because clearly, I forget which town it was but II up north where they had one that located next to a daycare center, it destroyed the daycare center. Batzli: I know in the past this group has said that they really don't want i to look at this and I think the Council has directed that we look at it. Emmings: Well I think we said, I think the decision here is an important II one. I think trying to looking at the secondary effects of these places I think is real legitimate. Looking at what they're doing or what they're 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 46 selling or anything else you ktow to me is something I have no... Ahrens: But it looks like we have only one option anyway. Batzli: We can only consider the secondary effects. Emmings: Yeah, and I think before we talk about it though I think we talk 1 about whether you want to try and regulate the activity and I think that's what we were talking about. We weren't really thinking about it in terms of secondary effect. Batzli: Okay, so you don't have a problem with this group looking at it as long as we limit ourselves to that? Secondary effects. Emmings: Right. Yeah. Krauss: Meaning we're not trying to legislate what is or isn't obscene. ' Ahrens: Nobody's been able to do that yet. Krauss: No, that seems to be where some of the more recent rulings are coming down. I think the Supreme Court just accepted a case, and I'm not sure what the implications are going to be but I think they define that community standard thing a little better. II A Batzli: I would like to try and avoid that. I'm sure this is one of the biggest nimbe kind of issue ever invented. Farmakes: It would go on forever. There are people who think that dancing and bowling are obscene. Krauss: The best you might be able to do or the best we might be able to pull off is coming up with some criteria that it can't be a near a church or can't be near a daycare center. Emmings: And school. Batzli: And limit it to a certain district or two. Can we limit it to the central business? Can we do a war zone? Put it in the CBD but you can't put it near a church. That kills half the CBD probably. Krauss: Sure. But then you have the problems that come up like we have that church that meets upstairs at the Frontier Building. Emmings: I think they ought to share space. Farmakes: This is material again and the piece that you handed out was talking about adult entertainment. We got into the discussion last time ' about bars or what goes on in entertainment. You talked about the liquor license and then some people get around for that by not having liquor served. Krauss: Well that's true. In fact Councilman Wing in fact, it's too bad he's left because he's got a position paper he just wrote up on that very 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 47 • issue. How do you deal with these things through liquor licenses and I'm convinced we have a pretty good handle. I mean you just don't have to give them a liquor license. Farmakes: Yeah, but I think there are other things too. -There are other II businesses. I heard on the news the other day that they had car washes in the nude. I didn't keep the coupon but it seems to me that. Ahrens: Not in this climate. ' Farmakes: From a practical standpoint it could get into everything. How are you going to legislate it? 'Emmings: We'll say they have to stay open in the winter. If they're open in the summer, they have to stay open in the winter. That will get them. II Batzli: It's interesting because for example like Tampa just outlawed the women selling hot dogs on the street corners in thong bikinis. And so you know, people there's. Ahrens: But men can do it. Batzli: No, all thong bikinis are illegal in public beaches and street corners or something. I don't know. • Krauss: You've got to at some point define what this applies to. And does it apply to the video store next to the Chinese restaurant? Batzli: That's the problem because that seems to me to get into the issues" that we don't want to look at. And that's going to be the biggest problem is how do we get this to apply to something without passing judgment on that and that's always been my concern with doing this personally. Does that mean that it applies to the video store or the grocery store selling II Penthouse or Playboy or? Who does this apply to then? Krauss: And that's where I don't understand how to come up with something r because ultimately you have to define why can the mini -mart over here sell Hustler from behind the counter but if some store were solely dedicated to, merchandising that kind of stuff, it was treated differently and I don't know. Farmakes: And what if they came in and they said Faulkner's obscene or To Kill a Mockingbird is obscene to me. Take it off the shelf. What criteria t do you use? I mean because you get the majority on one side that says we feel that this is wrong. Emmings: I think the thing that I guess I'd be concerned about is, are more, well I'm not even going to say that. I thought I knew before I came in here but I don't think I do. 1 Krauss: Well if anybody's got some constructive approaches to it, let me know because. Farmakes: Could the City Council, what are they worried about? t Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 48 Krauss: I don't know. I think that, I mean I understand their fear. Their fear is they're going to be confronted with something like that town was up north that they can't deal with that's very destructive and divisive. Farmakes: Which town is this in? Emmings: And what is it? Batzli: What they opened was a. Krauss: It's up around Champlain and that area. Batzli: It was a bookstore, magazine store, which I think also had the 11 littie, did it have the little movie booths in there too? Krauss: I think so. 1 Batzli: It was a XXX kind of a place though and they put it in within 50 • feet or 25 feet of•a daycare facility and all the parents were dropping off 1 their kids at the daycare facility went bunkers and they pulled their kids out and it ruined the daycare facility. 1 mean that's the issue is are you going to allow businesses to come into the community that have an adverse impact like that on certain types of businesses like potentially schools, daycare and be able to do it without regulating content of everybody and that's my concern. Farmakes: It seems to me it's the price you pay for the freedom. Batzli: Yeah. But is it fair to the existing stores? I mean you get into this kind of argument. Farmakes: You could reverse the argument also. ' Batzli: Is it fair not to let them in? Farmakes: You're a lawyer and all 1 can say is that it seems like it's a merry -go -round and it would seem to me very difficult. You could reverse the comment and have a store owner come in and say the daycare was built next to my place of business and ruined my business. It then becomes community judgment as to which one they wanted as far as content goes. 11 Ahrens: But I think at some point communities are obliged to make decisions of who can locate where. Batzli: But we do that all the time. Farmakes: ...used for zoning. Emmings: We don't really do it based on moral judgments though. Batzli: We should be doing it on kind of health and welfare kind of issues. I mean the gas station can't be within a certain distance because of the odors and the traffic and things like that. If in fact this would 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 49 generate some health or hazard`to the stores next door, then I think it's something we should be looking at. I don't know that it would, although I think there have been areas in, war zone kind of areas where it does bring in in theory crime and prostitution and whatever to these districts that they set up. Ahrens: ...on Lake Street where that's been a real problem. Batzli: Yeah. And so the question is, do we try to regulate it in advance? Keep them spread out but if we do that, how do we decide who has to be spread out? Farmakes: It's still a valid, under 18? Is that the criteria that's used? They didn't elaborate that on here as far as age. Krauss: I don't know. Farmakes: Like for instance that next to a place where there are children II concentrated or something of that nature. They do that say with liquor don't they? Krauss: Well frankly, some bf the liquor reviews get kind of odd. I mean II you'll get a minister coming in saying, it's within a,mile of my church. You can't do that. Or it's 4 blocks from a high school so you can't sell beer. I mean it's a regulated industry you know. You're breaking the law if you sell it but I guess I'd have to ask Roger that if we really wanted to establish criteria to make sure that the more abusive locations are avoided, and how do we define what we're moving around? 1 Emmings: Right. That's the problem. •Can't do it. Batzli: What do we need to either move this or kill this at this point 1 then? Krauss: I guess I'd really like to ask Roger that question specifically. I' mean my discomfort is not being able to differentiate between Brooks. Ahrens: We already know that we allow that. The community doesn't have a II real big problem with that. With the Brooks market selling magazines right? We're not worried about controlling that. Krauss: But the material, I mean some of the stuff Roger's got in here is 1 fairly graphic. Emmings: I read this several times. Slowly. 1 Farmakes: ...and acceptable under the law? Krauss: Yeah. But I guess I just don't know how you differentiate between!' the video store with the back room with the X rated movies. The Brooks with the stuff behind the counter from Ferris Alexander's nephew opening ups omething you know downtown. If there's a creative way of doing that, maybe it warrants making sure the worse abuses are at least taken care of. 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 5O Emmings: It's a little different here than Minneapolis I think because if people from the community don't go in there, if people object to what's in there, they don't have to go in. And I have a hard time thinking that people are going to be driving. Farmakes: ...down south they can't sell. Emmings: Right. Krauss: That's true but I think that there's, from us who live in suburban areas, I think there's a fair amount of smugness that we live in an area 1 that wouldn't support the business. Yet you go down to Lake Street and you figure out where everybody's coming from. Ahrens: They're all driving Jeeps. Emmings: I saw you down there last time didn't I Paul? You were looking to see who was comeing down there. Krauss: Yeah, I was doing a survey. ' Batzli: But you probably want to go outside of the community to purchase it so they wouldn't be recognized. Krauss: Well there is that. But let me ask Roger that question and see what kind of response we can get. Batzli: Okay. Good way to handle that. Did everybody notice that we have a schedule now for attendance at City Council meetings. Ahrens: Is there any purpose for us to be there if they're not discussing thought any? Krauss: At the next Council meeting? No. Batzli: So you're off the hook. Okay, so the only notice we get is, oh and it also states our terms on the back side. I didn't even notice that. 1 Ahrens: Mine's wrong on there. Batzli: Is it? What's your term? Ahrens: Well I mean the beginning date for my term is wrong. Batzli: It says appointment date, '86. Boy you have been on the commission a long time haven't you? Krauss: Unless it was because of, did you fill a seat that was vacated by a resignation? Ahrens: Yes. Batzli: Dave's? Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1992 - Page 51 Krauss: No. Batzli: She's sitting in Dave's spot. Ahrens: Dave Wildermuth? Batzli: No, Jim Wildermuth. Dave Headla. So don't tack Dave's on there with her. That looks about when Dave would have been appointed to me. Emmings: Yeah. Batzli: Okay, anyway. The only notice that you get of your turn in the 1 barrel attending the Council meeting is you get the packet a couple days in advance. Krauss: Friday the cops will show up at your door. Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor 1 and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10 :20 p.m.. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 sr- 1 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINIITES 3/12/92 1 COMMISSION PRESENT: Don Chmiel, Dave Dummer, Brian Beniek, Dave Johnson, Eldon Berkland, Craig Blechta, Bill Bernhjelm Councilmember Richard Wing Public Safety Director Scott Harr Fire Chief Jim McMahon CSO Bob Zydowsky ' Building Official Steve A. Kirchman Sgt. Julie Boden Conservation Officer Steve Walter Chairperson Dummer opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. with a reminder that these meetings will start promptly at 7:00 p.m. Brian Beniek motioned, Dave Johnson seconded, to approve the 2/13/92 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion ' passed. FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Chief McMahon asked the Commission to research the City's A insurance coverage fo'r volunteer firefighters. Director Harr, ' - Assistant City Manager Todd Gerhardt and Firefighter John Wolf will meet with the City's insurance representative and report back at the April meeting. 1 The heavy rescue truck has been ordered and will arrive approximately April 20. Lynch Display Vans, Inc., will be showing the truck April 11 - 15 in a Cincinnati International Conference presentation. The rescue truck will be available for display at the May Public Safety Commission meeting. Chief McMahon explained the new cooperation with the Chaska Fire Department. Firefighters are training with both departments for mutual aid cooperation. Firefighter Blechta is also coordinating training exercises for Chanhassen firefighters and the Minneapolis 111 Fire Department. CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Sgt. Boden reported the deputies are in arbitration. She also invited any Councilmembers or Commissioners to ride along with the Sheriff's Department. 1. 1 • INSPECTION DIVISION Building Official Kirchman reported upcoming projects with both commercial and residential developments. Discussion was held on ' the status of the weather station. Steve also welcomed ride - alongs with any of the Inspectors. 1 OLD BUSINESS • Discussion was held on the number of commissioners and the length of terms. Eldon Berkland motioned, Craig Blechta seconded, to approve the amended ordinance to read 7 members serving 3 year terms. 1 Eldon Berkland motioned, Brian Beniek seconded, to eliminate the requirement of a Public Commission annual report. All voted in favor and the motion passed. ' NEW BUSINESS Director Harr commented on the article on the Community Service Officers in the recent Villager. CSO Zydowsky noted the increase I in animal calls during the past two months. Councilmember Wing commended the CSO program and the level of management by the Public Safety Director which make this a vital program for the City. He ' also stated his interest in having the CSOs assist the Fire Department. Director Harr discussed the past three years of participation in 1 the Animal Control Contract. His recommendation is to continue one more year with the five cities and to evaluate the contract again this time next year. The Commission concurred with this ' recommendation. Director Harr discussed his recommendation to adjust our animal ' control fines so as to be in line with the other cities in Carver County that are establishing a uniform schedule. Craig Blechta motioned, Bill Bernhjelm seconded, to accept the uniform animal control fines recommended by Director Harr. All voted in favor and 1 the motion passed. Discussion was held on the current shooting /hunting map. Director 1 Harr reminded the Commission that they had desired to review the shooting boundaries each year. Sgt. Boden and DNR Conservation Officer Walter discussed the fact that there have been very few complaints. It was the consensus that as the City continues to grow, the shooting boundaries will shrink. It was suggested that a restriction be included to restrict shooting close to parks and trails. Bill Bernhjelm motioned, Eldon Berkland seconded, to recommend the addition to the d. restrictions on the map side of the permit "Within 500 ft. of any road, street or highway, park or trail". Director Harr will present this recommendation to the City 1 1 1 Council for approval. 1 Director Harr discussed a desire to review the necessity of warning sirens in town. Councilmember Wing discussed prior meetings regarding the outdoor warning siren issue. Commissioner Dummer would like some recommendations go to the Council addressing the issue of additional outdoor warning sirens in the City after the Public Safety Commission has reviewed the situation. 'Director Harr ' will meet with the Park & Recreation Coordinator to discuss other funding possibilities. The next meeting on the outdoor siren issue will be prior to the next Commission meeting on April 9, 6 p.m. Craig Blechta motioned, Bill Bernhjelm seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1